AD Basketball update
- Thread starter UR80sfan
- Start date
We just want Mooney and Hardt to be held accountable for their proclamations. Don't you?
As I said, I'll reserve judgment until the entire schedule is released, and that will be a while.
I like the Charleston game. This past season was the first I can remember where we didn't play a CAA opponent.
If we are indeed swapping Vanderbilt for Georgetown (unknown), it doesn't move the needle much, and probably the wrong way at that.
If we are swapping Coppin for Vandy?
Or more reasonably, Wake at home for Vandy away?
At least that should be in the right direction...
Were we expecting a third Georgetown game? I can't remember. If so and if we bumped it for Vandy, then yeah, that's a definite downgrade since both games would be away.
I thought I saw that Vandy was a home-and-home, which is why I used Georgetown, as we just completed that home-and-home.
Fact remains that Georgetown was our only Quad 2 OOC game.
We need to schedule at least a couple sure-fire Q1 and Q2 games. At least half the A10 will do that, at a minimum.
There's still time.
Beating Vandy and BC are not signature wins that enhance our resume. Yes, we need to "win" more games but if we want an NCAA tournament worthy resume, we need to beat some other tournament worthy teams in the OOC. Vandy and BC are not that.
agreed. those aren't going to be signature wins. but they're big conference games. I like all big conference games. and we probably have a better chance at winning these than Auburn or Wisconsin. we have some good name games this year.
No question about it. if everyone is worried about an at-large, the schedule is more than acceptable for an at-large. We just need to win most of these games. I would imagine if we looked back at A-10 at large teams, there were several thay had no really impressive out-of-conference tier 1 type wins.
You just need to do well enough against a decent out of conference schedule, and then hope your conference does well so you can pick up some quality wins in conference. Don't forget, we were only 7-6 out of conference a few years ago with no good out of conference wins at all, and just missed getting in.
We were 6-6 in TJ's final year out of conference and had a 6 seed in the NIT. That means there were at least 20 teams ahead of us in the pecking order to earn an at-large bid. We did not "just" miss getting in. We had no chance of getting in that year.
I said a few years ago when we went 7-6. That is when we were a 1 seed in the NIT. We lost six out of conference games and had no good out of conference wins, but still almost got in. Try not to be so quick to attack every post of mine.
Definitely. Just going 9-4 ooc instead of 7-6, even with no great wins, likely would have been enough when we were a 1 seed in the NIT.
We did play NC State and UNI that year, which were solid Tier 1 games.
Obviously we need to win more OOC, but you can't just ignore Q1 and Q2 in your discretionary schedule.
Davidson, Dayton, and URI had much better OOC schedules in 2018 than we are showing for 2019 and they were not getting at-large consideration.
I'm hoping they're not done yet and will surprise us with some top opponents.
Obviously we need to win more OOC, but you can't just ignore Q1 and Q2 in your discretionary schedule.
Davidson, Dayton, and URI had much better OOC schedules in 2018 than we are showing for 2019 and they were not getting at-large consideration.
I'm hoping they're not done yet and will surprise us with some top opponents.
But, we didn't beat NC State or UNI that year, and the A-10 teams you mentioned last year had very few good OOC wins. Seems like you are only worried about who we play, and not if we beat them or not. We can play the hardest schedule out there, but if we don't beat anybody you can forget about an at-large. Our schedule is not ignoring Q1 or Q2. And, we are playing Auburn and/or Wisconsin, but for some reason some of you want to ignore that.
I think folks are just reacting to the claim “toughest schedule.” Objectively, it doesn’t look like the toughest schedule right now. Maybe it will in August when it’s filled out, who knows.
Your point about it being a winnable toughest schedule is valid of course. It’s not real helpful if you lose every Q1/Q2 game you play.
You're cherry picking again. I thought I was very clear we need both. More wins, and more quality opponents.
That year we were 7-6, but at least we scheduled some Q1 teams - so we were close after a solid A10. We could go 9-4 against what we know so far and not be as close.
Our best opponent by far will be whoever we meet in Brooklyn. By "discretionary schedule" I meant the non-tournament games.
Our rivals are scheduling plenty of no doubt Q2 or better opponents, and yes, winning only a few of those.
I don't expect us to only schedule Q1 teams. There should be a balance. Winnable games and top teams.
What we have announced to date is not enough, especially if Vandy and Charleston do not wind up Q2.
I will bet anyone a dollar that if we don't announce more Q1/Q2 games, we won't have nearly the toughest OOC schedule in the A10 next year.
And most importantly, we can't afford Q4 losses. Period. No matter who we beat or schedule. Hopefully we can agree on that.
That year we were 7-6, but at least we scheduled some Q1 teams - so we were close after a solid A10. We could go 9-4 against what we know so far and not be as close.
Our best opponent by far will be whoever we meet in Brooklyn. By "discretionary schedule" I meant the non-tournament games.
Our rivals are scheduling plenty of no doubt Q2 or better opponents, and yes, winning only a few of those.
I don't expect us to only schedule Q1 teams. There should be a balance. Winnable games and top teams.
What we have announced to date is not enough, especially if Vandy and Charleston do not wind up Q2.
I will bet anyone a dollar that if we don't announce more Q1/Q2 games, we won't have nearly the toughest OOC schedule in the A10 next year.
And most importantly, we can't afford Q4 losses. Period. No matter who we beat or schedule. Hopefully we can agree on that.
I haven't felt like we could "beat anybody on any given night" in a long time. Unfortunately, I have felt like we could lose to anyone...and we have the last few years. I'm really tired of starting slowly of the gate regardless of the schedule setup. Last year was a laughable (easy) schedule and we started poorly. I hope we see a sense of urgency from the players and coaching staff right from the beginning of next season. Business as usual isn't going to cut it and shouldn't be tolerated by our AD or fans.
Why are you only focusing on non tournament games? Tournament games are where most teams get their Q1 or Q2 games OOC. You said at least we scheduled some Q1 games a few years ago, as if we have not this year. We have.The tournament does count, as much as you try to act like it doesn't when complaining again.
I don't even know which year we're comparing to.
sometimes we get lucky. no way we knew Northern Iowa was going to be a Q1 opponent.
sometimes we get lucky. no way we knew Northern Iowa was going to be a Q1 opponent.
There you go again with "only." I'm not. It's just not up to our discretion, that's all I'm saying. We will definitely have at least one likely Q1 OOC next season. That is a good thing.
ODU Away should also be a quality game.
VCU played UVA, Texas, Wichita St and ODU in non-tourney games. (And Charleston)
Dayton played Miss St, Auburn, and Colorado in non-tourney games.
Davidson played UNC in a non-tourney game.
Good lord, I'm not even complaining about our schedule. I'm saying we have more to do to meet the expectations set by our coach. Vandy, Charleston, and Auburn/Wisconsin won't get us there.
ODU Away should also be a quality game.
VCU played UVA, Texas, Wichita St and ODU in non-tourney games. (And Charleston)
Dayton played Miss St, Auburn, and Colorado in non-tourney games.
Davidson played UNC in a non-tourney game.
Good lord, I'm not even complaining about our schedule. I'm saying we have more to do to meet the expectations set by our coach. Vandy, Charleston, and Auburn/Wisconsin won't get us there.
Last edited:
Good point. And somehow, a few years ago when we played I think the 177th toughest OOC schedule, that is a good schedule for some on here because "at least it included a couple Q1s", while this year's schedule is bad? I guess it depends on what debate they are in. Laughable.
Still reserving judgment I see? What do last year schedules have to do with anything anyway? What about this year? Isn't that what we are talking about anyway?
Last year's schedules were only brought up in response to your statement that most teams get their Q1/Q2 games in tourneys.
I don't know that those games will all be good RPI games, but as a fan I like playing all of them. I expect we'll add some lower level local-ish games, and hopefully another Q1/Q2 type game.
According to Bob Black, Wake is off.
Legends Classic 2/3 N - New Mexico isn't very good, but Auburn and Wisconsin are
Charleston H
ODU A
BC H
Vandy A
Two Regional Legends Classic opponents H - according to Hardt's statement, one of them is an NCAA tourney team - that's good. They haven't made the 4 sub-regional teams public, but he must know who they are. That means we're getting a home game against a tourney team. I like that. If you look at the history of the LC, the other opponent will be....not very good.
That leaves 4 or 5 games (depending on 12/13 non-conf). If we fill those games with Quad 4 dreck, it's still probably an improvement over last year, but doesn't rise to "one of the toughest schedules in the A10."
BC is probably an improvement over Wake.
Vandy is likely a downgrade from Georgetown. You may disagree; that's fine.
Charleston is a nice add.
Legends Classic is better than last year's tourney.
Last edited:
In the two years they've used the Quad system, all three A-10 at large teams have had at least one Quad 1 OOC win PLUS one "just barely outside of Quad 1" OOC win.
Before the Quad system, I think you're right, but they had really good records.
RPI is not used anymore, but I know what you mean. Maybe all won't be good, but it is safe to say most will be, and all should be safely away from Q4, which is important because you don't want more than 2 or 3 Q4s on there. I agree it would be nice to see another Q1 or Q2 on there.
Good info. Good to know another Legends game is a good one. Also, with BC and Vandy on there, I am fine with no Wake, but I hope the rest are not Q4 games.
We r not definitely getting a home game against ncaa team from Legends. Maybe. Hardt said potential to play 3 NCAA teams. That means just 1 of remaining 4 is ncaa. Which kinda makes sense since those r typically lower end teams. So we get 2 of those 4 at home which means a 50% chance to face the NCAA one. My feeling is the tournament organizers will not give us the best 2 of 4 as they likely cater to the big conf teams. From Hardt’s statement the draw is not yet determined for the early home games.
We’ll get auburn or Wisconsin to start in Brooklyn. Win that we likely play the other one in final. Lose and we likely get New Mex.
I hope it works out and we get the 3 NCAA teams but odds are much greater we face just 1 ncaa team from last year in this Legends tourney.
Thanks for the clarification. It makes more sense given Hardt's "potential" qualifier.
I don't understand why they wouldn't publish the 4 sub-regional teams. We've known about our participation since November, and the official announcement came in March. Maybe they haven't secured all 4, but Hardt knows at least 1 is an NCAA team.
That's all I am saying. Man, all that arguing and you agree with me.
The most likely tiers/Quads for our committed games is 1/1/5/1. This is based on modeling, not my subjective analysis. If we fill in with Q4 we're at 1/1/5/5. Better than last year's 0/1/3/9, but not nearly one of the best schedules. If we could get our mode to 2/2/4/4, it may not seem like much, but it's significantly better without being insanely difficult.
4700, you spent the entire last fall trying to convince this board that our OOC last year was in fact full of high quality games and equal if not better than the prior year's schedule. So, excuse us, if some of us take your schedule analysis with a large grain of salt. It is right up there with your constant drumbeat of how this past years team was going to be better without Khwan and Buck. Both were ridiculous and almost indefensible arguments to make in the first place and then of course the season happened and provided us all evidence as to just how ridiculous they were.
I don't like it, either. It's been a long term relationship that's hopefully taking just a short break. If it goes away completely then it's another one of Hardt's middle fingers to the MBB program. If we replaced Wake with someone like UVA or even Georgetown then that's fine, but I don't see that happening.
Sounded like it was just a temporary break. I think there was a year with the past six or seven when we didn't play them, also.
Similar threads
