Bubble Watch

[Eight Legger]

Here are the combined records (and winning percentages) of leagues roughly around ours and a few higher level ones in Q1 games. I realize some of this is skewed for the higher leagues when both teams in a game are Q1 teams, but still...

29-67 MWC - 30%
37-96 ACC - 28%
24-74 PAC12 - 25%
11-49 A10 - 18%
9-51 WCC - 15%
7-48 MVC - 12%
7-50 AAC - 12%
1-25 MAC - 4%

 

[Captain Anderson]

all A10 Q1 wins:

Dayton == neutral over St Johns, away over SMU, neutral over Cincinnati
Richmond == home over Dayton
vcu == home over Dayton
Mason == home over Dayton
Loyola == home over Dayton (noticing a pattern?? 🤣 )
UMass == away over Richmond
Duq == away over SBU (this is just barely a Q1 as of today)
St Joes == neutral over Villanova

So I guess Dayton has at least provided a nice cache of Q1 wins for the conference if nothing else lol

Thanks for the updated info. Looks like the Quad 1 wins outside of A-10 play were: St. John's, SMU, Cincinnati, and Villanova. A bunch of (maybe?) bubble teams. No signature wins over any NCAA locks which is why the A-10 tournament is going to be wild but unfortunately why we still have lots of work to do as well I'm afraid.

 

[GKiller]

I think with the NET, as long as you beat those teams convincingly it doesn't really hurt. and we did for the most part.

to me, losing the road games which we THOUGHT were good games (Wichita State, Northern Iowa, Boston College) is what's hurting us.

If we got 1 of those wins no doubt it helps, any help we'd take. But overall I just hate the cupcake city approach. Maybe Lunardi advocated for that approach, maybe he's no longer involved idk. I don't think we should ever have basically half our OOC schedule filled with them.

U need big wins in OOC. The A10 is not the B12 or any other p6. We can't game the system. We don't have the horsepower. Those leagues can rely on their top teams to win big games ooc. The A10 can't, and the lesser ones are not going to just murder weak teams, even a UR won't consistently.

I've said it for years schedule OOC hard it's only way imo. Look at Dayton, how they do in A10 doesn't matter. maybe they can't finish 6th, but finishing 4th would be fine.

 

[urmite]

Rank of OOC by NET

Dayton 39
Davidson 136
SLU 141
URI 183
VCU 184
UR 190
Loyola 195
Duquesne 196
St Joe 215
GMU 240
SBU 257
LaSalle 305
Fordham 333
GW 349
UMass 355

Most of those make an at large more difficult

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

I kind of disagree with the scheduling being advocated here. We see what has happened - go 13-0 in OOC and rising tide of league play raises all NET numbers. B12 data I posted here supports it - they had 10 teams that scheduled absolute trash in OOC yet magically all their SOS numbers jumped 250 spots in league play, just by playing one another at 12-1 each to start.

If UR was 13-0 vs cupcakes OOC and 28-2 overall right now, would we be on the bubble / in the mocks as #1 seed in A10? Yes. I think we would. JMU is doing it by virtue of winning one game - first game of year - despite not even winning their extremely inferior league. UR beat a comparable team to Mich St. in terms of NET - Dayton - but didn't mostly run the table otherwise bc we scheduled 3 OOC road games in Massachusetts, Iowa and Kansas. There is a reason no high majors play road games anymore.

Playing ACC teams like BC (NET 97) does nothing to help, it's worse than most A10 road games and doesn't help much if you win. Play the top 4 teams in ACC or play cupcakes. Have a terrific schedule or go unbeaten. I feel like we're in a binary world where there is no middle ground for scheduling teams because of their major conference affiliation, only if they project as top 4 in that major conference.

 

[urmite]

I kind of disagree with the scheduling being advocated here. We see what has happened - go 13-0 in OOC and rising tide of league play raises all NET numbers. B12 data I posted here supports it - they had 10 teams that scheduled absolute trash in OOC yet magically all their SOS numbers jumped 250 spots in league play, just by playing one another at 12-1 each to start.

If UR was 13-0 vs cupcakes OOC and 28-2 overall right now, would we be on the bubble / in the mocks as #1 seed in A10? Yes. I think we would. JMU is doing it by virtue of winning one game - first game of year - despite not even winning their extremely inferior league. UR beat a comparable team to Mich St. in terms of NET - Dayton - but didn't mostly run the table otherwise bc we scheduled 3 OOC road games in Massachusetts, Iowa and Kansas. There is a reason no high majors play road games anymore.

Playing ACC teams like BC (NET 97) does nothing to help, it's worse than most A10 road games and doesn't help much if you win. Play the top 4 teams in ACC or play cupcakes. Have a terrific schedule or go unbeaten. I feel like we're in a binary world where there is no middle ground for scheduling teams because of their major conference affiliation, only if they project as top 4 in that major conference.

I advocate beating 5 teams that are NET 220 by 10 points each instead of beating 5 teams that are NET 320 by 10 points each…

 

[mojo-spider]

I think Joe is unfortunately spot on with his comments. He's not the only one who sees it either. Almost no site or analyst has us even on the bubble currently. That doesn't mean its not been a great season but the conference just isn't a "strong" conference as in other years. Here's an interesting note from The Athletic regarding the A10 from a "bracket busters" standpoint, we all knew our team is not great at rebounding, but this puts it in stark perspective:

Atlantic 10 is a jumble​

UMass Minutemen (Underdog Rating: 15.7)

St. Bonaventure Bonnies (UR: 14.9)

Saint Joseph’s Hawks (UR: 12.7)

Dayton has played well enough this season that the Flyers have probably nailed down a No. 6 or No. 7 seed in the NCAA Tournament. They’re 23-6, with one loss to Houston and five to other opponents by a combined 21 points. It’s Richmond, however, that leads the A-10 by a game over the Flyers and Loyola Chicago, and stands to earn the conference’s automatic bid. Problem is, Richmond ranks 362nd in the NCAA in offensive rebounding percentage, grabbing only 17.1 percent of its own missed shots. That’s 362nd out of 362 D-I programs.

Look, there are plenty of ways to compete without emphasizing the offensive boards, and Chris Mooney has won more games at Richmond than any other coach. But there’s just no record of a longshot with anything like those numbers pulling off an upset in the NCAA Tournament. To overcome a superior opponent’s shooting, an underdog needs to build possessions — and take some chances doing so. If you walk the ball up the court deliberately, protect it exceptionally well, pass accurately inside and hit threes that open up, you can beat VMI and Siena and Queens University of Charlotte and William & Mary and Buffalo and Lafayette. And, well, that’s most of Richmond’s non-conference wins. But that style won’t work against Auburn or Marquette. Slingshot estimates Richmond would underperform against an NCAA Tournament favorite by a whopping 8.7 points per 100 possessions and assigns the Spiders an Underdog Rating of just 4.7.

Loyola (4.1) fares even worse: The Ramblers also forgo offensive rebounding (ranking 291st) and turn the ball over on 18.8 percent of possessions, a rate far worse than Richmond (ranking 289th). They’re a top-100 team in shooting from inside and outside but barely a top-200 offense overall.

So give us literally almost anyone else from the A-10. UMass (15.7), now coached by Frank Martin, hits the offensive glass and forces turnovers. St. Bonaventure (14.9) keeps things slow and has three players shooting 39 percent or better from behind the arc. Saint Joseph’s (12.7) ranks 11th in the nation in 3-point shots as a percentage of field-goal attempts. The main building on the campus at Fordham (5.4) is named Keating Hall. Slingshot says there are nine teams in the A-10 whose basic power rating is between 7 and 12 points per 100 possessions better than average, which should make for an entertaining tournament. Hopefully one of them will rescue the conference from squandering its second bid on an experiment in risk aversion.

That being said I'm just going to enjoy the season and hope for an A10 championship!

was Slingshot around in 84, 88, 91, 98, 11 and 22? Different eras, coaches and philosophy, but one constant the Spiders were “Giant Killers” ..,how’d we fare in the model?.,,did we bust the formula?..,

Just keep winning and let see what happens!

Go Spiders!

 

[8legs1dream]

Slingshot vs SRS

who wins 😂

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

I advocate beating 5 teams that are NET 220 by 10 points each instead of beating 5 teams that are NET 320 by 10 points each…

I’m not a math guy would that push our NET up any? Doesn’t change the quads I assume?

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

Also what is UR’s NET if you remove the WSU, UNI and BC losses and replace them with wins vs teams ranked 225-227?

 

[GKiller]

Also what is UR’s NET if you remove the WSU, UNI and BC losses and replace them with wins vs teams ranked 225-227?

The formula is secret. Please crack the code.

What if we played 3 buy games on road against much stiffer comp and even won 1 which I think is possible. While also bringing in money.

The latter would have definitely helped our NET.

 

[SFspidur]

Impossible to say considering we don't know the NET formula. I tried using Torvik's simulator but it shows swapping out our worst five OOC opponents for ones in the 220 range would make our NET slightly worse, which doesn't make any sense. I'm assuming it's because the predictor only uses W/L for added/changes games has no way to include efficiency stats for those theoretical games.

 

[fatherspider]

I think Joe is unfortunately spot on with his comments. He's not the only one who sees it either. Almost no site or analyst has us even on the bubble currently. That doesn't mean its not been a great season but the conference just isn't a "strong" conference as in other years. Here's an interesting note from The Athletic regarding the A10 from a "bracket busters" standpoint, we all knew our team is not great at rebounding, but this puts it in stark perspective:

Atlantic 10 is a jumble​

UMass Minutemen (Underdog Rating: 15.7)

St. Bonaventure Bonnies (UR: 14.9)

Saint Joseph’s Hawks (UR: 12.7)

Dayton has played well enough this season that the Flyers have probably nailed down a No. 6 or No. 7 seed in the NCAA Tournament. They’re 23-6, with one loss to Houston and five to other opponents by a combined 21 points. It’s Richmond, however, that leads the A-10 by a game over the Flyers and Loyola Chicago, and stands to earn the conference’s automatic bid. Problem is, Richmond ranks 362nd in the NCAA in offensive rebounding percentage, grabbing only 17.1 percent of its own missed shots. That’s 362nd out of 362 D-I programs.

Look, there are plenty of ways to compete without emphasizing the offensive boards, and Chris Mooney has won more games at Richmond than any other coach. But there’s just no record of a longshot with anything like those numbers pulling off an upset in the NCAA Tournament. To overcome a superior opponent’s shooting, an underdog needs to build possessions — and take some chances doing so. If you walk the ball up the court deliberately, protect it exceptionally well, pass accurately inside and hit threes that open up, you can beat VMI and Siena and Queens University of Charlotte and William & Mary and Buffalo and Lafayette. And, well, that’s most of Richmond’s non-conference wins. But that style won’t work against Auburn or Marquette. Slingshot estimates Richmond would underperform against an NCAA Tournament favorite by a whopping 8.7 points per 100 possessions and assigns the Spiders an Underdog Rating of just 4.7.

Loyola (4.1) fares even worse: The Ramblers also forgo offensive rebounding (ranking 291st) and turn the ball over on 18.8 percent of possessions, a rate far worse than Richmond (ranking 289th). They’re a top-100 team in shooting from inside and outside but barely a top-200 offense overall.

So give us literally almost anyone else from the A-10. UMass (15.7), now coached by Frank Martin, hits the offensive glass and forces turnovers. St. Bonaventure (14.9) keeps things slow and has three players shooting 39 percent or better from behind the arc. Saint Joseph’s (12.7) ranks 11th in the nation in 3-point shots as a percentage of field-goal attempts. The main building on the campus at Fordham (5.4) is named Keating Hall. Slingshot says there are nine teams in the A-10 whose basic power rating is between 7 and 12 points per 100 possessions better than average, which should make for an entertaining tournament. Hopefully one of them will rescue the conference from squandering its second bid on an experiment in risk aversion.

That being said I'm just going to enjoy the season and hope for an A10 championship!

Why would these statistics even matter? That is ridiculous. Now we determine if a team is deserving of an NCAA bid by analyzing offensive rebounding numbers??? Holy shit!!! The metrics/efficiency bullshit has gone way too far. So team stats are as important now as win/loss record? This guy needs his head examined.

 

[SFspidur]

Here's how The Athletic evaluated our 2022 matchup with Iowa based on Slingshot:

No. 5 Iowa Hawkeyes vs. No. 12 Richmond Spiders

Upset Chance: 11%

During the regular season, Slingshot saw Richmond essentially as dangerous as any killer in the Atlantic 10. The Spiders compel opponents to play at a very slow pace, and while they are just average at hitting threes, they’re game to try. Then they won the A-10 tourney, beating three superior, distinctive and more publicized opponents along the way in VCU, Dayton and Davidson. So this is just the kind of longshot we would love to get behind – but here comes a buzzsaw. According to our model, Iowa is the 14th-best team in the country and scores 121.5 points per 100 possessions after adjusting for opponent strength, second-most in the country. And that’s not just because they shoot well, but because of their underdog-smothering qualities: they hit the offensive boards and rarely give the ball away (turnovers on just 12.9% of possessions, ranking third). Ho hum, another Cinderella’s dreams quashed by a bad matchup, right?

Well, maybe. But this is a rare case where our model’s estimate doesn’t align particularly well with history. Of the 10 tournament games most similar to Iowa-Richmond since 2007, the underdogs went 6-4 and slightly outscored favorites overall. And the results included some memorable upsets involving longshots who do look like Richmond statistically: Lehigh over Duke in 2012, Mercer over Duke in 2014, Winthrop over Notre Dame in 2007, Liberty over Mississippi State in 2019. The winners of these games tended to shoot very well from inside, which typically doesn’t matter much for deep underdogs. And check it out: Richmond has hit 52.2% of its 2-point FGA this season (ranking 78th), while two of Iowa’s few weaknesses are giving up inside shots (allowing 50% on 2-point FGA, ranking 185th) and defensive rebounding (30.2% DR%, ranking 262nd). If Richmond can find ways to hit from close range, it could brew an upset that resembles these games, even if it wouldn’t be typical enough for Slingshot to predict.

 

[8legs1dream]

find you someone that loves you the way Slingshot loves offensive rebounding

 

[GKiller]

I don’t like to publicize this but I have a model called Boomerang.

Halle Berry is my spokesperson.

It predicted a Richmond win over Iowa and then me drinking 14 beers postgame at the Draft Room across the street from KeyBank arena in Buffalo.

Nailed it 100%

 

[urmite]

Impossible to say considering we don't know the NET formula. I tried using Torvik's simulator but it shows swapping out our worst five OOC opponents for ones in the 220 range would make our NET slightly worse, which doesn't make any sense. I'm assuming it's because the predictor only uses W/L for added/changes games has no way to include efficiency stats for those theoretical games.

Interesting, yes I assume beating 320 by 25 is better than beating 220 by unknown amount.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

find you someone that loves you the way Slingshot loves offensive rebounding

love this.

Richmond can't win because it sucks at offensive rebounding! But Iowa is vulnerable to an upset because they suck at defensive rebounding.

Joshua, play tic-tac-toe.

 

[urmite]

Impossible to say considering we don't know the NET formula. I tried using Torvik's simulator but it shows swapping out our worst five OOC opponents for ones in the 220 range would make our NET slightly worse, which doesn't make any sense. I'm assuming it's because the predictor only uses W/L for added/changes games has no way to include efficiency stats for those theoretical games.

Is NET OOC SOS just an average? If so we could see removing worse 5 and adding 220x5.

 

[SFspidur]

Is NET OOC SOS just an average? If so we could see removing worse 5 and adding 220x5.

No.

"The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team's schedule for how hard it would be for an NCAA tournament-caliber team to win. It considers opponent strength and site of each game, assigning each game a difficulty score. Aggregating these across all games results in an overall expected win percentage versus a team's schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of the strength of schedule."

So it's a black box that comes out however the NCAA wants it to.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

 

[urmite]

No.

"The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team's schedule for how hard it would be for an NCAA tournament-caliber team to win. It considers opponent strength and site of each game, assigning each game a difficulty score. Aggregating these across all games results in an overall expected win percentage versus a team's schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of the strength of schedule."

So it's a black box that comes out however the NCAA wants it to.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

A black box in a black box.
Wonderful…

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

No.

"The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team's schedule for how hard it would be for an NCAA tournament-caliber team to win. It considers opponent strength and site of each game, assigning each game a difficulty score. Aggregating these across all games results in an overall expected win percentage versus a team's schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of the strength of schedule."

So it's a black box that comes out however the NCAA wants it to.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

"Each game is assigned a difficulty score" is very opaque.

For instance Michigan St. losing at home to JMU to open the year is forgiven, but Loyola doing the same against UIC is not. So UR being the only other team to win at LUC this year is given zero credit.

Same with Villanova coming in 6/6 in the Big Five tournament. By all means have them in the mix today because look how competitive they are NOW, not how they looked in December. But can the Spiders get that consideration? No.

Seems so much is double-speak that doesn't apply uniformly across the ncaa.

UNLV now in Lunardi's bubble teams to watch, a team UR beat by 30 on a neutral court. Zero mention for UR.

 

[Eight Legger]

It wasn't *quite* 30, but yeah, we handled them very easily and should be getting credit for that win if Dayton is getting credit for beating teams like Cincinnati (currently 11th in a 14 team league, 5-11 in Q1/2 games and with 2 Q3 losses but somehow a 45 NET ranking). We should be 45th in the NET before Cincinnati is; we are 6-5 in Q1/2 games, also have 2 Q3 losses and our worst loss is to NET 150 while theirs is to NET 147.

 

[fatherspider]

"Each game is assigned a difficulty score" is very opaque.

For instance Michigan St. losing at home to JMU to open the year is forgiven, but Loyola doing the same against UIC is not. So UR being the only other team to win at LUC this year is given zero credit.

Same with Villanova coming in 6/6 in the Big Five tournament. By all means have them in the mix today because look how competitive they are NOW, not how they looked in December. But can the Spiders get that consideration? No.

Seems so much is double-speak that doesn't apply uniformly across the ncaa.

UNLV now in Lunardi's bubble teams to watch, a team UR beat by 30 on a neutral court. Zero mention for UR.

Mentioning UNLV as the 7th MW team under consideration, without including UR is a total joke. UR would have 11 wins in that league and 4 or 5 would be Q1’s. The whole system is a sham.

 

[SpiderGuy]

He's just flat wrong at this point. He thinks the A10 is a really good league but also thinks it only deserves one team? Shut the hell up. WTF logic is that? We're 18 and goddamned 2 in our last 20 games in the eighth-ranked league in the country. What more do we need to do?

Agree. What the hell? Guess he thinks the A10 is on par with CAA and Sunbelt? No matter what we do or the conference does, it’s not good enough. Screw em all.

 

[SpiderRick]

Agree. What the hell? Guess he thinks the A10 is on par with CAA and Sunbelt? No matter what we do or the conference does, it’s not good enough. Screw em all.

Our original reasons for joining the A10 have all evaporated. It's a one bid league just like the CAA

 

[MrTbone]

By and large the A10 hasn’t been a one bid league but it’s trending the wrong way.

It does feel like the league should revisit the OOC scheduling “policy” it had tinkered with a while back. It was perhaps somewhat unpopular depending on where they viewed you in the pecking order but overall I think it worked to lift the conference profile.

 

[8legs1dream]

I think the A10 is too far gone at this point and barring a Big East invite which isn't coming there is no path forward presently out there.

The top dog mid-major basketball schools that don't have FBS football should create a new conference, that is the ticket.

 

[Spider B]

I think the A10 is too far gone at this point and barring a Big East invite which isn't coming there is no path forward presently out there.

The top dog mid-major basketball schools that don't have FBS football should create a new conference, that is the ticket.

I disagree. It's the 8th best conference with 9 top 100 teams or so. The A10 just needs to win a couple more OOC games to bump teams from NET 70-100 to net 50-70. Having three teams in that range is a game changer. It would be nice to get rid of Forrdham and LaSalle. But other than that, I think you have a bunch of schools committed to basketball success. The A10 isn't that far off.

 

[Captain Anderson]

I disagree. It's the 8th best conference with 9 top 100 teams or so. The A10 just needs to win a couple more OOC games to bump teams from NET 70-100 to net 50-70. Having three teams in that range is a game changer. It would be nice to get rid of Forrdham and LaSalle. But other than that, I think you have a bunch of schools committed to basketball success. The A10 isn't that far off.

Agreed. The main takeaway from this Thread is that you HAVE to get OOC wins against other NCAA bound teams (as a team and a conference). Those are the golden tickets that give you a leg up on other Mid Majors and bubble teams when resumes are being compared by the committee. A-10 teams have to win some of those early season tournaments and at least a few of the power 5 matchups that they can schedule. It stinks and the margins are really thin but if the conference gets some of those OOC wins then you have a pool of teams within the A-10 that have strong NET rankings and more opportunities for good wins and the avoidance of bad losses...otherwise your NCAA hopes are almost over before conference play starts which I know is incredibly unfair but unfortunately what we are facing.

 

[8legs1dream]

yeah, the "8th best conference" gets as much respect as the 28th best conference in the eyes of the committee.

 

[mr.spider]

Our original reasons for joining the A10 have all evaporated. It's a one bid league just like the CAA

It is frustrating, but I think we generally are a multi-bid league. It certainly feels like the league is good enough that the 1st place team shouldn't be sweating a bid. 9 teams in the top 100 is pretty darn good. If each of those teams were 20 or 30 places higher in the suspect NET system (again, good concept but needs tweaking in terms of margin credit), we would be talking 3, 4, maybe 5 bids. So, it is exceeding frustrating to be challenged with a very tough in-league schedule but not be rewarded for it when you do well against it. In that sense, it currently feels like we should just dominate a lower league, but then your whole recruiting profile goes down...and you could end up 2nd place in a league like the Sunbelt. But who does that?

That said, I still like our chances for a bid this year! Stay focused and keep winning, baby!

 

[mr.spider]

I think the A10 is too far gone at this point and barring a Big East invite which isn't coming there is no path forward presently out there.

The top dog mid-major basketball schools that don't have FBS football should create a new conference, that is the ticket.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I don't think the A10 is a lost cause, though.

 

[spiderman]

the A10 is a good conference. not quite was it was at it's peak, but still strong.
thank goodness we left the CAA.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I guess the question is - was our schedule good enough for an at-large bid this year given its makeup. I think an argument could be made that it was. We just didn't win enough early, and that might be typical (we will have to wait and see) in the transfer era with Mooney teams because it just might take them some time to find their roles on the team and excel at them.

Our losses early on were as follows.

BC
Colorado
Wichita
Northern Iowa
Florida

I don't expect us to win all of those games. But I think you group them into buckets. Colorado and Florida were high level games. Very similar to Dayton in conference. We beat Dayton, and we needed a win in one of those games. Colorado, early in the season - was probably our best chance.

Then the next group - BC, Wichita, Northern Iowa - I wonder how our NET would have been different if we just win 1 of those games (along with 1 win above).

So really - probably not far off. What really hurt us this year is the A10. Too much of a gap between Dayton and the rest. You have Dayton in Net 20 range. And then everyone else is about 70 or higher. Really what the A10 needs is in any given year 1 top team like Dayton (Top 30 NET), then another team (or two) that fall between 30-50 NET. Then we can have the handful of teams like this year that fall in that 70-100 range.

I don't love the NET, but if the committee is going to use it and the NCAA is going to push it, then we need to play the NET game. And the Big 12 showed a flaw in it this year to their advantage. Play weak OOC games, but you got to run up the score and win big. Then schedule 1-2 GOOD OOC games, which you need to win. But you do that - you get an inflated NET ranking, but when multiple teams in the same league have inflated NET - they only help each other when they play each other.

Might be something the A10 needs to discuss behind closed doors. It would also be nice if the A10 could get an agreement with another conference - maybe AAC? And get guaranteed matchups each year. Cause right now - I think UR and other A10 teams rely on that multiple game even early in the year for good games - and that is very risky year to year.

Would also be helpful if UR could get games with teams in our own backyards - UVA, VA Tech, Wake - get multi year schedules with them. I know its so close geographically - its got to make sense at some point.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

Agreed. The main takeaway from this Thread is that you HAVE to get OOC wins against other NCAA bound teams (as a team and a conference). Those are the golden tickets that give you a leg up on other Mid Majors and bubble teams when resumes are being compared by the committee. A-10 teams have to win some of those early season tournaments and at least a few of the power 5 matchups that they can schedule. It stinks and the margins are really thin but if the conference gets some of those OOC wins then you have a pool of teams within the A-10 that have strong NET rankings and more opportunities for good wins and the avoidance of bad losses...otherwise your NCAA hopes are almost over before conference play starts which I know is incredibly unfair but unfortunately what we are facing.

No you don’t. Dayton has beaten zero ncaa locks, only some bubble teams and marginal bubble teams OOC. Then they went 4-4 on the road against (supposedly) non bubble teams in conference.

A thought experiment I did the other day based on Dayton’s season:

Reverse the timeline of their OOC and conference play. Meaning, pretend at the beginning of the season they lost 4 games to non-bubble teams in their first 16 games and started January at 12-4. Not an ncaa lock, right? Not even close, right? Would their results thereafter - beating bubble St. John’s, non bubble SMU, non-bubble Cincinnati, solid but not bubble Troy and non-bubble LSU and losing to bubble team NW and losing convincingly to Q1A Houston - be enough to overcome that kind of OOC? I don’t think so. Not even close to making them a lock, right?

Yet here we are.

 

[Captain Anderson]

No you don’t. Dayton has beaten zero ncaa locks, only some bubble teams and marginal bubble teams OOC. Then they went 4-4 on the road against (supposedly) non bubble teams in conference.

A thought experiment I did the other day based on Dayton’s season:

Reverse the timeline of their OOC and conference play. Meaning, pretend at the beginning of the season they lost 4 games to non-bubble teams in their first 16 games and started January at 12-4. Not an ncaa lock, right? Not even close, right? Would their results thereafter - beating bubble St. John’s, non bubble SMU, non-bubble Cincinnati, solid but not bubble Troy and non-bubble LSU and losing to bubble team NW and losing convincingly to Q1A Houston - be enough to overcome that kind of OOC? I don’t think so. Not even close to making them a lock, right?

Yet here we are.

Unfortunately timing does play a role in all this...just like in life. Good and bad. We would all have loved to have had a fully healthy roster in the OOC. In that case the Spiders probably do claim a few resume boosting wins. I don't know what to say about the metrics love of Dayton...I've written about it several times...and you are right, they have not beaten any NCAA locks yet.

 

[gcarter52]

All we can do is keep winning, let the rest take care of itself.

 

[spiderman]

high level ROAD out of conference games are tough to win.
high level HOME out of conference games are almost impossible to get these days for non P6 teams.

 

[Eight Legger]

Things I hope every year that the committee takes into consideration:

• winning percentage in Q1 and Q2 games;
• location of Q1 and Q2 games
• road wins
• conference record
• NET of best win and worst loss

Most of these would benefit us this year, but I think the bigger point is that these metrics typically will tell you who is legit and who isn't. If you can't win many road games, you're probably something of a paper tiger. Similarly, if you have 10 Q1 and Q2 wins but it took you 25 Q1/2 games to get them, I'm going to be more impressed by a team with 5 of those wins in 9 tries, for example.