Davidson/McKillop
- Thread starter fatherspider
- Start date
Yes I think then we hear look how TJ Harper and Golden developed . I think part of develop is to make 4 year player into some type of role player . This is key
They threw Cincinnati, Arizona and Kentucky at Virginia. Villanova has much easier bracket.
Selection committee once again shows if you are not in P5, you better win your tournament. St Mary’s and Middle Tennessee State screwed.
Is there anyone outside of Syracuse or Arizona State who would rather see them get in over both of these teams?
March is a lot more fun with the St. Mary's and Middle Tennessee State's making the Sweet 16's as a Cinderella than Syracuse or Arizona State doing it
You have to give credit to Arizona State for scheduling a strong out of conference schedule and having several quality wins (Kansas State, Xavier, Kansas). St. Mary's can't say the same. Yeah, the Devils stumbled a bit in the Pac-12 down the stretch, but so did South Carolina last year and look what happened to them in the NCAAs in 2017. I'll admit, as an ASU season ticket holder, I'm biased.
I am with you. Mediocre teams like USC, Arizona St, Syracuse and NC State are a dime a dozen. These chicken scratch schools won’t play the St Mary’s and Middle Tennessee States of the world. When these schools have a special year and only lose 4 or 5 games instead of 12 or 13, they should get in and keep the dream alive. Yes these P5 teams played tougher teams, but they lost to them too.
The margin for error is bigger the better conference you’re in. If you know you’re not in a great conference, then you have to schedule OOC games that will give you a chance to impress against good teams.
St. mary’s potential resume building games when scheduled were against Washington state, Georgia, Cal, and Dayton. They only beat Cal and Dayton who weren’t very good themselves (RPI’s of 216 and 147 respectively). Also their losses to Georgia and Washington State were both at home. They needed to test themselves more OOC knowing their conference is Gonzaga and everyone else.
Middle Tennessee State went out and played some tough (or potentially tough when scheduled) OOC games (Murray state, Belmont, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Auburn, USC, Miami). They beat Murray state, Vandy, and Ole Miss. Unfortunately, Vandy and Ole Miss had down years (RPI’s of 132 and 141 respectively). So while they tried to create a good OOC resume, they just didn’t win the games against the better OOC competition (and their conference does them no favors).
Is it fair that schools in better conferences get more chances to impress? Probably not. But for these two schools, one didn’t go out and try to impress in a serious way OOC, and the one that did schedule well, didn’t impress in their OOC games.
St. mary’s potential resume building games when scheduled were against Washington state, Georgia, Cal, and Dayton. They only beat Cal and Dayton who weren’t very good themselves (RPI’s of 216 and 147 respectively). Also their losses to Georgia and Washington State were both at home. They needed to test themselves more OOC knowing their conference is Gonzaga and everyone else.
Middle Tennessee State went out and played some tough (or potentially tough when scheduled) OOC games (Murray state, Belmont, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Auburn, USC, Miami). They beat Murray state, Vandy, and Ole Miss. Unfortunately, Vandy and Ole Miss had down years (RPI’s of 132 and 141 respectively). So while they tried to create a good OOC resume, they just didn’t win the games against the better OOC competition (and their conference does them no favors).
Is it fair that schools in better conferences get more chances to impress? Probably not. But for these two schools, one didn’t go out and try to impress in a serious way OOC, and the one that did schedule well, didn’t impress in their OOC games.
Wrong! Syracuse played multple ncaa teams outside of the acc...in ys past id agree, not this yr!
It is time to look in the mirror if we were among those who came on here and said the A-10 was going to be a one-team conference this year, and that was the consensus of the MAJORITY on here. I said we would get 2-3, but was favoring two, and thinking that some team would knock out URI, with a bet on "URI vs. the field." That part did happen, but the emergence of the Bonnies was a very pleasant surprise! And, both URU and the Bonnies lose a lot of talent next season, as I recall (as does VDU).
The fact that we got three in this season, even if it was a bit of a "back-door" 3 (with Davidson winning the tourney and the Bonnies getting a "play-in" game, bodes well for next season. We did get three teams in, during a really DOWN year, so UR's chances of making the field next season just got a little bit brighter. We will have to improve, and we will likely need development and contributions from our red-shirts, but the potential is there.
The fact that we got three in this season, even if it was a bit of a "back-door" 3 (with Davidson winning the tourney and the Bonnies getting a "play-in" game, bodes well for next season. We did get three teams in, during a really DOWN year, so UR's chances of making the field next season just got a little bit brighter. We will have to improve, and we will likely need development and contributions from our red-shirts, but the potential is there.
Well let’s don’t praise the A-10 too much. We were 12-20 and came in 5th out of 14. I will root for these A-10 teams and hope they make a good showing. For the record, I would not have rooted for VCU.
Tied for 5th. Also tied for 8th...
Taking a quick look though, we had the second worst overall record of any team in the A-10 (what’s up Fordham!), but we were 9-9 (or 10-10 after the tourney) in conference.
I think what that says to you depends on how you feel about the team/coaching at the moment: great growth theoughout the year from a young team, tough OOC schedule for Richmond, weak OOC schedules for the rest of the A-10, failings by the coaching staff in games we should have won OOC.
For me personally, I think it’s a combination of all 4.
If there is any school we should compare ourselves to in the A10 - it should be Davidson, since they are pretty similar to us in size and academics. But on the basketball court - they have somehow been able to enjoy more success than us, especially in the A10. They made the jump from the Southern Conference.
But since joining the A10 they have done very well, but more importantly - they have experienced a consistent level of NCAA appearances so far under McKillop.
Since their magical run in 2008 with Curry to the Elite 8 (Similar to our run to the sweet 16) - they have returned to the dance about every 3-4 years. They returned in 2012, 2013, 2015, and now again in 2018. During that time they have also made the NIT in between - in seasons 2009, 2014, and 2016.
If they can do it, in our own conference, with a similar to profile to us - why can't UR be on the same path. I would argue we have more money (bigger endowment) and better facilities than Davidson - but I think they have the better coach at this point.
Is it wrong to expect an NCAA berth about every 4 years with an NIT appearance in between? And before you say that is too lofty a goal for UR basketball - just remember, this is what Davidson is already doing with less money, lesser facilities, etc.
But since joining the A10 they have done very well, but more importantly - they have experienced a consistent level of NCAA appearances so far under McKillop.
Since their magical run in 2008 with Curry to the Elite 8 (Similar to our run to the sweet 16) - they have returned to the dance about every 3-4 years. They returned in 2012, 2013, 2015, and now again in 2018. During that time they have also made the NIT in between - in seasons 2009, 2014, and 2016.
If they can do it, in our own conference, with a similar to profile to us - why can't UR be on the same path. I would argue we have more money (bigger endowment) and better facilities than Davidson - but I think they have the better coach at this point.
Is it wrong to expect an NCAA berth about every 4 years with an NIT appearance in between? And before you say that is too lofty a goal for UR basketball - just remember, this is what Davidson is already doing with less money, lesser facilities, etc.
It is becoming clearer to me that really the only thing people care about is getting to the NCAAs. They don't care how good the team is as long as they get to the NCAAs. They don't care if they win any games in the tournament as long as they get that invite. It is an interesting perspective to me, very single minded and very pervasive.
Putting McKillop on a pedestal is the epitome of this perspective. McKillop has made the NCAAs on an at large bid once, and he has only produced an at-large quality team twice in three decades. He needed one of the best basketball players in the history of the sport for one of those years, and he even managed to miss the tournament in Steph's final season. His NCAA appearances are generated not by putting together at-large quality teams, but by winning conference tournaments. There is some correlation between those two things, but they are certainly very different from each other. There is a huge amount of luck involved with winning conference tournaments.
In McKillop's 8 appearances in the NCAA tournament he has advanced past his 1st game once, again with Steph Curry. He is not praised for his ability to perform in the tournament, and almost never has a team good enough to actually advance having needed a conference tournament win to get the bid. He is praised for getting the bid.
There is no doubt that McKillop is a good coach. There is no doubt that anyone would choose McKillop over Mooney when building a basketball team. There is no doubt that McKillop shares some of the same recruiting challenges as Mooney. And there is no doubt that with the right coach Richmond could be just as successful as Davidson has been. But it should be understood that McKillop's and Davidson's success is built almost entirely on winning conference tournaments, which requires a lot of luck no matter who your coach is or how good your team is. It is not built on McKillop being able to assemble at-large quality teams with at-large quality resumes, and in that respect he is pretty similar to Mooney.
Putting McKillop on a pedestal is the epitome of this perspective. McKillop has made the NCAAs on an at large bid once, and he has only produced an at-large quality team twice in three decades. He needed one of the best basketball players in the history of the sport for one of those years, and he even managed to miss the tournament in Steph's final season. His NCAA appearances are generated not by putting together at-large quality teams, but by winning conference tournaments. There is some correlation between those two things, but they are certainly very different from each other. There is a huge amount of luck involved with winning conference tournaments.
In McKillop's 8 appearances in the NCAA tournament he has advanced past his 1st game once, again with Steph Curry. He is not praised for his ability to perform in the tournament, and almost never has a team good enough to actually advance having needed a conference tournament win to get the bid. He is praised for getting the bid.
There is no doubt that McKillop is a good coach. There is no doubt that anyone would choose McKillop over Mooney when building a basketball team. There is no doubt that McKillop shares some of the same recruiting challenges as Mooney. And there is no doubt that with the right coach Richmond could be just as successful as Davidson has been. But it should be understood that McKillop's and Davidson's success is built almost entirely on winning conference tournaments, which requires a lot of luck no matter who your coach is or how good your team is. It is not built on McKillop being able to assemble at-large quality teams with at-large quality resumes, and in that respect he is pretty similar to Mooney.
To be fair, an at-large resume is basically impossible to create out of the SoCon.
Is an at-large different from winning the A10 tourney - yes. But the end result is the same and that is all that matters - NCAA tournament. The fact that McKillop wins the tourney to get the tourney doesn't matter to me - just getting there is what matters. And honestly - Mooney's two appearances in the tourney - one would likely argue we needed to win the tournament that 2nd appearance to make it - so Mooney is the same way. Of his 2 appearances - only 1 was truly at large as we were a def bubble team that 2nd year as shown by the 12 seed we received even with winning the A10 tourney.
When you only make the tourney about every 4 years, like Davidson and possibly UR at some point - your not worried about winning once you get there. Once you start making it consistently - like VCU was doing the past several seasons - then you start worry or expecting wins.
When you only make the tourney about every 4 years, like Davidson and possibly UR at some point - your not worried about winning once you get there. Once you start making it consistently - like VCU was doing the past several seasons - then you start worry or expecting wins.
There are not many schools that play Division I basketball at this level that have smaller student enrollments than we do. Two of them happen to play in our league. Guess what? They both are playing in the NCAAs this year.
I never want to hear that excuse again.
I never want to hear that excuse again.
We got the 12 seed because of our opponent in the A-10 final. Everyone was pretty much slotted, and they didn't want to reshuffle everything if Dayton won. Ironically, had we lost the A-10 final, we probably get a 10, a 10 gets pushed to the play-in game, and VCU never makes their final four run. Whatever, it worked out and that was obviously a favorable 12 spot.
In fact for some players I think to much strength training ruined their shot.
"If they can do it, in our own conference, with a similar to profile to us - why can't UR be on the same path. I would argue we have more money (bigger endowment) and better facilities than Davidson - but I think they have the better coach at this point."
Think they have a better coach--c'mon there's no question!
Think they have a better coach--c'mon there's no question!
Have respect for Bennett, but St Mary's played a bad SOS hand and committee called their bluff. Good teams like Rhode Island offered to play them and they said no. Can't play bad schedule and expect to be rewarded even with 29 wins. They'd beaten Zags in-season, so they should have beaten them in tourney. At some point, though, these committee nerds and power brokers need to give real requirements on what it takes to get an at-large. Without this blueprint, every non-P5 coach is basically flying blind. Which leads to overreaching like UR this year with #22 OOC SOS for a group of players not even close to ready.
Similar threads
