A-10 Sticking With 18-Game Schedule

[SFspidur]

Some changes with other sports though...regionalizing and reducing conference schedules, reducing conference tourneys to four teams, etc.

Decisions approved that will apply to only the 2020-21 season were to regionalize and condense conference schedules by 25 percent in the sports of field hockey, volleyball, men’s soccer, women’s soccer, baseball, softball and women’s lacrosse. These revised schedules will allow for institutions to ensure a safer environment, minimize travel and missed class time, and conserve cost while still providing competitive schedules for the student-athletes and coaches. Additionally, the 2020-21 Atlantic 10 Championships for volleyball, men’s soccer, women’s soccer, baseball, softball and women’s lacrosse were each reformatted to a four-team championship. This will minimize travel exposure, provide a final four competitive experience and allow for the championships to be conducted in one weekend.

https://atlantic10.com/news/2020/5/...-modifies-schedules-championship-formats.aspx

 

[SpiderK]

Glad we aren’t playing anymore A-10 games.

 

[VT4700]

Wish we were playing 20 A-10 games. 11 out of conference games is plenty. We would play 7 teams twice instead of 5. Sure, we might end up with a bottom feeder twice for an extra game, but there's also a good chance we could get one of the top teams twice.

 

[GKiller]

I've stated before 20 games would have surprised me (unless it was purely a 1 year covid exception). I didn't see the top teams going for it, the ones that have the ability to schedule better and get games like we're proving to do if you work at it. Teams like fordham, lasalle, Bonnie (they r good but tough to schedule there) all likely wanted 20 but overall I still don't see the advantage. 20 means we beat each other up more in A10, that's already proven to be a negative, you can only take so many losses in league play. OOC still has the higher upside for us and others imo.

They'll continually evaluate it I bet, with some more conferences going to 20 we'll see what happens but 18 to me is plenty.

What's a little odd is I listened to the Mooney interview link w bob black that 23 posted in other thread and if you listened to that Mooney seemed to be talking about 2 more games, which insinuated 20 A10 games, but then this news hit right after. Mooney couldn't have been that out of loop. And no way would they schedule only 29 games vs. 31, that would be a form of self annihilation.

 

[SFspidur]

Can’t schedule 29 under the new MTE rules. Every team in a given MTE must play the same number of total games, so I’m sure we’ll all go to 31.

 

[GKiller]

Can’t schedule 29 under the new MTE rules. Every team in a given MTE must play the same number of total games, so I’m sure we’ll all go to 31.

I thought with a 3 game MTE that u could play up to 31 games, not that u couldn't choose to play less than 31. That 2nd part is really damn weird. What r they going to do to us and Kentucky if say Detroit can't get a 31st game? But hey I'm sure Kentucky will play the max games so if we r locked in too then great.

 

[SFspidur]

I thought with a 3 game MTE that u could play up to 31 games, not that u couldn't choose to play less than 31. That 2nd part is really damn weird. What r they going to do to us and Kentucky if say Detroit can't get a 31st game? But hey I'm sure Kentucky will play the max games so if we r locked in too then great.

I had seen language somewhere that specified it, but I can't find it now. The NCAA's most recent news release about it is less clear, indicating that all participating teams must use the same limit, but that may not mean they must all play up to that limit. So now I'm not sure.

There was talk that the rule could affect Ivies' ability to play in MTEs since they intentionally schedule fewer than the max number of games.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...men-s-basketball-multiple-team-event-proposal

All participating institutions must use the same maximum contest limit.

 

[Ferrum Spider]

I’d of been ok with 20 as long as we went to the CUSA model at the end of it. 18 seems right we play all the close teams twice and then a random team sprinkled in somewhere.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I’d of been ok with 20 as long as we went to the CUSA model at the end of it. 18 seems right we play all the close teams twice and then a random team sprinkled in somewhere.

C-USA's model is an 18-game schedule for a 14-team league. It accomplishes the goals of playing the best teams twice (if you are in that category) and also giving you OOC opportunities.

 

[Ferrum Spider]

C-USA's model is an 18-game schedule for a 14-team league. It accomplishes the goals of playing the best teams twice (if you are in that category) and also giving you OOC opportunities.

Not suggesting to copycat it entirely. Just saying I’d be okay with the extra two games being similiar to cusa style. We’d likely of played Dayton and URI to end the year before heading to conference tournament. I’d of taken that over the extra Radford game + whatever other scrub we played in non con.

I’m also fine with the A10 current 18 game setup.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Not suggesting to copycat it entirely. Just saying I’d be okay with the extra two games being similiar to cusa style. We’d likely of played Dayton and URI to end the year before heading to conference tournament. I’d of taken that over the extra Radford game + whatever other scrub we played in non con.

I’m also fine with the A10 current 18 game setup.

Got it. I like your idea of just two bonus games, but then you have to split up the conference into 5 tiers, with the bottom two teams playing a home+home (tough).

I was just pointing out that the C-USA system works for a 14-team league with an 18-game schedule (which we currently have). It allows for the round robin +1, then the four bonus games against your tier. If you applied it to a 20-game schedule, you'd have round robin +3, then your bonus games. This would increase the likelihood of playing crappy teams twice, or multiple teams 3 times. There is always a chance that you'd play your "rival" 3 times in the regular season under the current C-USA system, if they finished in the same tier.

A modified system that would work well for 20 games (arguably even a better fit for 14 teams) would be to play the round robin +1, then divide the league into just two tiers. If you finished in the top half of the league, you'd play the other "good" teams in your six bonus games. You'd get 20 conference games plus you're guaranteed to play all the top teams at least twice. I suppose increasing the number of bonus games creates scheduling/travel nightmares. Also there's always the nagging potential for the 7th-place team after 14 games going 0-6 in their bonus games, while the 8th place team goes 6-0 against the bottom tier.

 

[SFspidur]

The bottom tier of C-USA teams automatically play somebody three times in the regular season, and it could potentially be four. With a 14-team league split into three tiers, the bottom tier has only 4 teams in it and each of them has to play a total of 4 games against the other three teams in it. So they get a bonus home-and-home with somebody else in the group, plus their regular game in the round robin.

It's possible you and your rivalry partner could both end up in the bottom tier and end up playing four regular season games, although I suspect C-USA would pair up the bonus home-and-home with someone else in the group to prevent that happening. The issue hasn't arisen in the couple of years they've been doing the bonus scheduling.

 

[SFspidur]

Mountain West going to 20 games, but not until 2022-23. SDSU is not a fan.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...all-mountain-west-20-game-conference-schedule

 

[spider23]

Mountain West going to 20 games, but not until 2022-23. SDSU is not a fan.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...all-mountain-west-20-game-conference-schedule

Interesting that WCC was forced to go from 18 to 16 by Gonzaga. SDSU could be in position to do the same to the MW.

 

[VT4700]

Mountain West going to 20 games, but not until 2022-23. SDSU is not a fan.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...all-mountain-west-20-game-conference-schedule

With 11 teams, they should definitely play 20 IC games. C'mon SDSU. Quit whining. You can still build a good OOC schedule with 11 OOC games. Look at some of the teams they played this year. They can't drop 2 of these for 2 more IC games?

Tex Southern 297 NET
Grand Canyon 267
Brooklyn 273
Tenn St 243
Cal Poly 313
San Diego 226

 

[spider23]

Wrong again 4700. Like Gonzaga, Dutcher is not content to sit back and take a 7 year break. He wants to do everything they can to be successful. They have some of the same challenges as the Spiders in scheduling. They did have some low level OOC but were able to play Iowa, Creighton, BYU, so at least give themselves a shot.

 

[GKiller]

 

[97spiderfan]

I hate agreeing with Rothstein but I don't see how going to more IC games is a benefit for a league like the A-10. Yeah, you can try and match-up your top teams at the beginning of the year, but that is more of an educated guess than anything (see VCU last year). And does a league like the A-10 even have enough high quality NET games to make this happen on a year in, year out basis.

You are tying every conference teams ability to go out and schedule high quality OOC games. 20 games is only 2 more games, but those games will eat into the list of available dates we could schedule those high quality OOC games.

And if you are a team like Richmond or Dayton or SDSU, you need all the available date options to make it happen.

 

[VT4700]

G, how does playing 20 IC games hurt a team's tourney chances? Look at SDSU. Why can't they replace 2 of these 6 cupcakes with 2 IC games? How would that hurt them? Seems like it could only make their schedule better if they got to play at least 1 decent IC team out of the 2 they would add. If they just added 2 bottom IC teams, there would be no difference, so worse case it would not hurt them, and actually, it would help them because their OOC schedule would now be rated better.

Same with us. If we dropped 2 of our bottom OOC games and added 2 IC games, maybe we get a top team (like Dayton last year) twice, or maybe we luck out and even get 2 of the top half teams twice (Rhode Is. or St. Bona. at home). But, even if it works out where we get a couple bottom teams, what is the difference? We would only be replacing them with 2 of our bottom OOC games. And, like with my SDSU example, our OOC schedule would now be rated better. I don't see the negative here. Whether you play 11 or 13 OOC games, you can still control how you schedule OOC.

 

[Spider2020]

G, how does playing 20 IC games hurt a team's tourney chances? Look at SDSU. Why can't they replace 2 of these 6 cupcakes with 2 IC games? How would that hurt them? Seems like it could only make their schedule better if they got to play at least 1 decent IC team out of the 2 they would add. If they just added 2 bottom IC teams, there would be no difference, so worse case it would not hurt them, and actually, it would help them because their OOC schedule would now be rated better.

Same with us. If we dropped 2 of our bottom OOC games and added 2 IC games, maybe we get a top team (like Dayton last year) twice, or maybe we luck out and even get 2 of the top half teams twice (Rhode Is. or St. Bona. at home). But, even if it works out where we get a couple bottom teams, what is the difference? We would only be replacing them with 2 of our bottom OOC games. And, like with my SDSU example, our OOC schedule would now be rated better. I don't see the negative here. Whether you play 11 or 13 OOC games, you can still control how you schedule OOC.

The problem with this is assuming that every team would be able to drop their 2 weakest OOC opponents. In theory, that would make the 20 game conference schedule fine, but that’s not what would happen in practice.

 

[VT4700]

The problem with this is assuming that every time would be able to drop their 2 weakest OOC opponents. In theory, that would make the 20 game conference schedule fine, but that’s not what would happen in practice.

Why wouldn't every team be able to eliminate playing 2 weak OOC games for 2 IC games? It is not like football where you have schedules in place years in advance. Every year, basketball teams are trying to fill their OOC schedules, and pretty much all of them will fill them with at least 2, and some like SDSU with 6, garbage OOC games. So, you are not having to drop 2 games that are already on the schedule. Just don't add them to began with.

If you mean all teams won't replace their 2 bottom OOC games and might try to get rid of their better OOC games, I could see that happening sometimes. Some teams will continue to schedule weak. But, that is their own fault if it hurts them come tourney time. But, most of the teams that will do this would likely be bottom tier teams anyway, so why would it matter? Playing an extra IC game would only help their overall schedules, which would maybe help top tier teams like us when we beat them. So, it seems like it is a win win for teams like us. We can still control our OOC scheduling, and we can have an extra chance or two to play a top A-10 team twice.

 

[SFspidur]

Two of those six were part of the Las Vegas Invitational, so they had to play those to get Iowa and Creighton. San Diego is an annual in-town rivalry game, so they'll always play that one for the fans.

One problem with more in-conference games is that no matter what happens, the records for conference teams in those games is .500. When we play Fordham, I want them to be a team that has a couple of additional wins over bad OOC teams under its belt rather than two more losses to other A-10 teams.

The best conference schedule is one where everybody plays just one conference game after going 30-0 in the OOC portion.

 

[GKiller]

VT4700 I presented that tweet without comment, I guess bc like 97 I don’t like agreeing w Rothstein. But I do here & others have hit on the main reasons.

It’s a numbers game w OOC. The fact is for confs outside p6 u r judged differently and ooc is more important on a relative basis than IC for non p6 leagues. Mainly bc those leagues have so many more opportunities for good quad wins. To be at large candidate outside p6 u need marquee ooc wins. Less games means less chances.

As 97 noted u r taking away dates to get those games. That’s a big factor. And 2020 is right u won’t just drop 2 worst. Fact is teams need some home games u can’t just go primarily on road for ooc. So w 11 u r still taking home buy games vs low major but have less remaining for others. Plus if we got 2 more in A10 odds r at least one is dogshit.

Yes u can control ooc to some degree but lot less control due to less flexibility w 11 games & I don’t like it. This trend to 20 games isn’t good for game. It will increase the p6 playing even less road games imo. Going to 20 seems like giving into what p6 wants which is to decrease at large ncaa access.

As I mentioned in earlier post I think top a10 teams would be against similar to SDSU vote and a few others in mwc. My guess is Mooney and UR against. Not positive but thought Mooney implied that once if I read btw the lines. I’m concerned about the less inventory of games so something for A10 to monitor. If ncaa would adopt rules u have to be .500 or above (incl conf tourney) in league play this could be mitigated but I don’t see them doing that unfortunately.

 

[VT4700]

G, well said. I can definitely see your point. I still think 20 IC games could work for a team like us, but it is not a no brainier and you definitely have made a good case against it.

 

[GKiller]

One other thing...imo it can be harder to win conf games many times. Simply bc there is more tape more familiarity later in year, more game planning etc. Often u can catch teams ooc who r not as prepared early on. I like that small advantage if used right.

So now u take on an extra loss somewhere to a lesser league team. Now sure the same chances for p6 applies too...except it’s proven that their loss is not weighted nearly the same.

 

[spider23]

imo it can be harder to win conf games many times. Simply bc there is more tape more familiarity later in year, more game planning etc.

Exactly right here, we saw when Mooney failed to adjust the match up zone how bad it got exploited. Next year will be tougher in conference for sure as we are bringing back the same starting five, and as good as they are, we rarely have the strength/athleticism advantage so scheming and execution become that much more important. I get sick of seeing some of these A10 teams, the less conference games the better.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

It's a cascade of consequences. If all the mid-major leagues expand their conference schedule and drop their weaker OOC games, the opportunities won't be there for the cinderellas. The lower conference teams will have nobody willing to fill their OOC schedule - and many of those conferences are small, which forces them to have even more OOC games.

Yes, I realize the P6 conferences are doing this - it doesn't make it right. They don't have the concerns that we do - shrinking their OOC doesn't limit their ability to "schedule up" - there's no level above them. A conference in the middle will find that shrinking their OOC will make it harder to "schedule up" while their ability to "schedule down" remains the same.

It's easy to say "everybody just drop your worst two OOC games" but kinda stupid when you stop and think about it.

 

[spiderman]

yeah, I'm fine with going to 20 conference games. you're going to schedule x number of "good" OOC games in a given year regardless of whether you have 11 or 13 OOC games. the 2 additional A10 games (one home and one away) will almost certainly be better games than the extra two OOC games we're talking about. in my opinion.

 

[SpiderK]

Anyone know when we will be able to renew season tickets for basketball?

 

[GKiller]

you're going to schedule x number of "good" OOC games in a given year regardless of whether you have 11 or 13 OOC games.

Not long ago it was 15. Then it was 13. Now 11. Before u know it they’ll play 24 conf games and it will be 8.

Think of scholarships. This is not a perfect analogy but u have 13 ships. But u only need to go 8 deep. Well u could get those top 8 out of 10 ships in theory. Lot harder. I’d rather take my odds of getting best 8 out of 13 ships. Same w games. If u targeting 7 good ooc games or X amount whatever that number is well I have a better chance of reaching that # when I get 13+ games to schedule. It can be done with 11 but just like ships it’s going to be harder to hit. So I don’t accept your premise above.

 

[97spiderfan]

If everyone had 2 less OOC games this year, would we have been able to schedule Cincinnati or Northern Iowa this year. Maybe but maybe not. Say both of their conferences also go to 20 games. When are they playing those additional game, are they doing it in early December like a few of the BCS conferences did this year, is the A-10 playing them at the same time as the MVC?

It gets tricky, it ties the hands of our schedulers and other teams schedulers as well.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

If everyone had 2 less OOC games this year, would we have been able to schedule Cincinnati or Northern Iowa this year. Maybe but maybe not. Say both of their conferences also go to 20 games. When are they playing those additional game, are they doing it in early December like a few of the BCS conferences did this year, is the A-10 playing them at the same time as the MVC?

It gets tricky, it ties the hands of our schedulers and other teams schedulers as well.

MVC only has 10 teams, so them going to a 20-game schedule is unlikely, but your point is well-taken.

GK is spot-on: reducing the OOC schedule will make it tougher to get marquee games. It will always be easy to schedule Quad 4 teams.

 

[SFspidur]

Is his "source" the A-10 press release from last week?

 

[GKiller]

Weren't the A10 pairings for next season due to be released this week?

 

[Eight Legger]

Is his "source" the A-10 press release from last week?

View embedded media

Dude is a complete clown show. Between all the motivational garbage he regurgitates every morning at the same time, the stupid t-shirts of his lame catchphrases that he sells and then passing off public news as something he exclusively "has learned," he is nauseating.

But at least he's super humble! And, I hear, always really hungry.

 

[plydogg]

It is really interesting to hear the dislike of him. Rothstein is by far my favorite media person in any sport. And it isn’t close. I had no idea there was such disdain for him

 

[Eight Legger]

He's just a caricature of himself constantly. I'm sure he knows some stuff, but he comes off as super smug across every platform, including TV and radio, and then all the extra Twitter garbage he spews is enough to turn me off alone.