ADVERTISEMENT

Mens 2024 - 2025 Polls/Rankings/Awards

I have expectations of winning.

You can misinterpret it as negativity over low preseason wins expectations, couch it any way you want. I don't care. But I expect yearly, to be a program that expects 20 wins as a baseline, with spikes from there. 2/3 wins. Not 55%. 66% baseline.

If we lose to W&M ever, or Bucknell given the current state of their program compared to ours, something is wrong. Even having doubts about winning these games or listing them as potential pitfalls, is something that I refuse to do. If our program can't convince outsiders that we can win these games, either we are terrible at marketing ourselves (we are) or we are sandbagging our program for some unknown reason (to outperform expectations? No idea why they'd go this route publicly.) Or people think we legitimately don't have the talent to do it, which should never be the case, given our program resources.

I think we should win virtually every OOC game, Auburn excepted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KE Spider, gospidersgo, mojo-spider and 4 others
brooklyn brownstone said:
I have expectations of winning.

You can misinterpret it as negativity over low preseason wins expectations, couch it any way you want. I don't care. But I expect yearly, to be a program that expects 20 wins as a baseline, with spikes from there. 2/3 wins. Not 55%. 66% baseline.

If we lose to W&M ever, or Bucknell given the current state of their program compared to ours, something is wrong. Even having doubts about winning these games or listing them as potential pitfalls, is something that I refuse to do. If our program can't convince outsiders that we can win these games, either we are terrible at marketing ourselves (we are) or we are sandbagging our program for some unknown reason (to outperform expectations? No idea why they'd go this route publicly.) Or people think we legitimately don't have the talent to do it, which should never be the case, given our program resources.

I think we should win virtually every OOC game, Auburn excepted.
Click to expand...
Many preseason prediction show a very low away winning percentage for nearly every team…

Certainly doesn’t mean it will happen…
 
urmite said:
What was our preseason KenPom rank, and A10 rank last season?
Click to expand...
Preseason was 126, final was 89. Not a huge swing. A10 was very, very weak last year. Kenpoms numbers are more about the conference improving than Richmond being worse.

Additionally, it is very hard for computer models to take into account every piece of info for every team. All they have is past on court performance for the players on the team, and historical team performance. When there are so many unknowns on the roster they tend to just use historical performance over the past 5 or so years. That is what is giving us these rankings.
 
Last edited:
If they used historical performance the last 5 years, we would certainly be a lot higher than 11th.

2020: 14-4 2nd.
2021: 6-5 8th( and a strange covid 8th because 7-4 was 3rd that year).
2022: 10-8 6th.
2023: 7-11 11th.
2024: 15-3 1st.

This would average us between 5th or 6th if they used historical performance over the last 5 years.
 
brooklyn brownstone said:
I have expectations of winning.

You can misinterpret it as negativity over low preseason wins expectations, couch it any way you want. I don't care. But I expect yearly, to be a program that expects 20 wins as a baseline, with spikes from there. 2/3 wins. Not 55%. 66% baseline.

If we lose to W&M ever, or Bucknell given the current state of their program compared to ours, something is wrong. Even having doubts about winning these games or listing them as potential pitfalls, is something that I refuse to do. If our program can't convince outsiders that we can win these games, either we are terrible at marketing ourselves (we are) or we are sandbagging our program for some unknown reason (to outperform expectations? No idea why they'd go this route publicly.) Or people think we legitimately don't have the talent to do it, which should never be the case, given our program resources.

I think we should win virtually every OOC game, Auburn excepted.
Click to expand...

I've brought this up before. There is plenty of that at Richmond. imo they prefer lower expectations. then can say we outperformed them. even tho if u look at historical Mooney performance in A10 vs. preseason polls, we do not. many of our fans minimize our ceiling and expectations too. so it is not just within the Robins Center although that is the side that carries more weight. We are not allowed to increase expectations with a 20 year dean of the A10 coach - it makes no difference to many even tho we see teams expectations skyrocket in sports based on who a team has as their coach or when they make a hire.

Some teams embrace high expectations - and we only have to look at our crosstown rival to see a close example. That type of thing is embedded in a program or school culture and it is something I have long wished would change. Because I do think it holds us back and bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I really thought it was changing when we moved to the A10 but it did not. We prefer comfortableness here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whampas and Spiders4ever
fan2011 said:
Preseason was 126, final was 89. Not a huge swing. A10 was very, very weak last year. Kenpoms numbers are more about the conference improving than Richmond being worse.

Additionally, it is very hard for computer models to take into account every piece of info for every team. All they have is past on court performance for the players on the team, and historical team performance. When there are so many unknowns on the roster they tend to just use historical performance over the past 5 or so years. That is what is giving us these rankings.
Click to expand...
I feel like there were a few prediction of us being 11th in a weak A10. But can’t remember if those were human or computer.
 
VT4700 said:
If they used historical performance the last 5 years, we would certainly be a lot higher than 11th.

2020: 14-4 2nd.
2021: 6-5 8th( and a strange covid 8th because 7-4 was 3rd that year).
2022: 10-8 6th.
2023: 7-11 11th.
2024: 15-3 1st.

This would average us between 5th or 6th if they used historical performance over the last 5 years.
Click to expand...
You don't take the last 5 conference placements and back-out ratings from there, haha. I think a lot of people struggle thinking about calculating preseason ratings for the entirety of NCAA D1 basketball instead of being hyper-focused on an individual team. Very different perspectives and approaches. You can read about some of the details of how kenpom preseason rankings are calculated here https://kenpom.substack.com/p/preseason-ratings-are-live

As far as the guts of my system, I include the last five seasons of team data and two seasons of conference data (using the current season’s membership), plus returning production, transfers, and notable freshmen, along with coaching changes. Independent forecasts are made for offense and defense.
Click to expand...
 
???? You said "historical performance from the last 5 years". What else would anyone think you were talking about when we are discussing conference rankings. Which is strange no matter what data Kenpom uses considering no one on the team 5 years ago is playing this year. Kind of shows how stupid and meaningless so many of these analytics are. That being said, still strange that anyone would have us 11th if using any type of historical performance from the past 5 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Maybe it's not individual stats but things like team efficiencies as a whole year over year over year? UR should be the easiest to peg bc we always have the same coach, always had the same style of offense and until last year I'd imagine the defense was fairly consistent since we went away from the matchup.

Saying analytics is stupid is not smart IMO. I understand your point that personnel change happens, but if you can look at numbers and they have the ability predict fairly accurately future results based on past performances (year over year over year) you'd be dumb to ignore them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wr70beh
brooklyn brownstone said:
Maybe it's not individual stats but things like team efficiencies as a whole year over year over year? UR should be the easiest to peg bc we always have the same coach, always had the same style of offense and until last year I'd imagine the defense was fairly consistent since we went away from the matchup.

Saying analytics is stupid is not smart IMO. I understand your point that personnel change happens, but if you can look at numbers and they have the ability predict fairly accurately future results based on past performances (year over year over year) you'd be dumb to ignore them.
Click to expand...
I didn't say all analytics were stupid. I said so many of these analytics are stupid. They just are. And that would include using our 2020 season as even 1% of what we might do this year. And I say that knowing how great our 2020 season was. But, if kenpom is using efficiencies, we are also way better than 11th too. Just saying...he is just picking names out of a hat right now for the most part.

He might be right. He might be wrong. But, what we do know is all of these analytics dudes were way off last year when they had us 11th.
 
2020: Kenpom had us 2nd best A10 team at 46.
2021: 4th best at 65.
2022: 6th best at 85.
2023: 8th best at 150.
2024: 4th best at 89.

So, it's hard for me to agree that he is using some kind of analytical data to put us 11th. I already showed where we finished in the standings. Now, looking at this.....like I said, he is pretty much just drawing names out of a hat right now.

Or, just say looking at our team THIS YEAR, we are 11th based on all the other A10 teams THIS YEAR. That's fine and, even though I think we will do much better than that, hard to argue with that opinion too much if he feels there are 10 teams better. Because it's an opinion. But, save the analytical crap....as if any data at all the past 5 years would justify being 11th.
 
fan2011 said:
Preseason was 126, final was 89. Not a huge swing. A10 was very, very weak last year. Kenpoms numbers are more about the conference improving than Richmond being worse.

Additionally, it is very hard for computer models to take into account every piece of info for every team. All they have is past on court performance for the players on the team, and historical team performance. When there are so many unknowns on the roster they tend to just use historical performance over the past 5 or so years. That is what is giving us these rankings.
Click to expand...
Do these numbers I compiled seem correct for the A10?
2019-2020
KenPom 1-50 2 teams
51-100 5 teams
101-179 3 teams average 154
180-364 4 teams average 231.8

2020-2021
KenPom 1-50 2 teams
51-100 4 teams
101-179 4 teams average 124.3
180-364 4 teams average 234.8

2021-2022
KenPom 1-50 2 teams
51-100 4 teams
101-179 4 teams average 145.3
180-364 4 teams average 230.0

2022-2023
KenPom 1-50 0 teams
51-100 3 teams
101-179 5 teams average 140
180-364 7 teams average 222

2023-2024
KenPom 1-50 1 teams
51-10 7 teams average 85.2
101-179 2 teams average 113.5
180-364 4 teams average 177.4

9 in top 102 last season?

Preseason
2024-2025
KenPom 1-50 2 teams
51-100 3 teams
101-179 10 teams average 135.1
180-364 0 teams
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
so projections say the bottom of the A10 is stronger than ever.
no gimmies. should be a very competitive fun season. probably plenty of upsets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcarter52 and urfan1
yes, but still need more top teams. 2 in top 50 is in line but only 3 in 50-100 is a couple short of historical it seems. A10 unable to keep the quality at the top while improving the middle/bottom simultaneously is an issue for quality wins and "bad" losses since we know that any 100+ loss by a non P4 team is always flagged, regardless of circumstances. Lose @109 Wake Forest and it's overlooked bc of quality wins opportunities cashed in the ACC. A10 doesn't have that luxury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
if all of our home conference games are ranked in the top 160, worst we can get is a Q3 loss.
if all of our road conference games are ranked in the top 135, worst we can get is a Q2 loss.

so that's good.

but with no weak teams in the conference, I expect a lot of teams within a few games of .500
while fun, that's not the formula for multiple bids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream and urfan1
spiderman said:
if all of our home conference games are ranked in the top 160, worst we can get is a Q3 loss.
if all of our road conference games are ranked in the top 135, worst we can get is a Q2 loss.

so that's good.

but with no weak teams in the conference, I expect a lot of teams within a few games of .500
while fun, that's not the formula for multiple bids.
Click to expand...
In other words, it is basically like last year. Like it or not, the new normal for the A10 is competitive conference games with 1-2 teams going to the NCAAs. I guess this year there is some “hope” that it could be 3 teams, but I don’t see it happening. There are too few “open spots” in the field. The power conferences keep getting bigger and will take the majority of the spots and then you have the Big East and everyone else competing for something like 10 spots. I can’t recall which article I read that had the 10 number, but I believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wr70beh
RichmondNative said:
In other words, it is basically like last year. Like it or not, the new normal for the A10 is competitive conference games with 1-2 teams going to the NCAAs. I guess this year there is some “hope” that it could be 3 teams, but I don’t see it happening. There are too few “open spots” in the field. The power conferences keep getting bigger and will take the majority of the spots and then you have the Big East and everyone else competing for something like 10 spots. I can’t recall which article I read that had the 10 number, but I believe it.
Click to expand...
Yep, this the new normal for the A-10. A one to 2 bid conference most years and the top team better not win the A-10 tourney or you are looking at 1 bid only. For us, with our putrid OOC schedule, we are gonna have to win the A-10 tourney to dance this year. This will save this board having to do a lot of bubble watch discussion cause our name isn't gonna be on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wr70beh and Spiders4ever
the teams the A10 competes with for 3rd or 4th (haha) bids are Nevada, Utah St., Colorado St. and the like. SDSU is the usual lock from that conference. Lately, they've been good in that conference, the A10, not so all the extra bids the A10 once got have shifted there.

Too much instability at the top of the A10. Dayton has been mostly consistent, but the wheel of the rest of the league hasn't lately led to consistently up years from teams who should have consistent at large hopes in UR, SLU, VCU.

Severe dropoff from Saint Joe's and recent struggles of SLU and Davidson (2 years) have not helped, nor has Bonas middling results while still being dangerous enough to beat anyone.

Loyola still new enough to get a pass.

Lasalle and Fordham remain who they are, GooMoos seem forever middle class, UMass is a shell of what it was and Rhody has been a mess except when Hurley was there. GW and Duquesne don't seem committed enough long term and don't draw well.

UR is as guilty as any program for where the A10 currently is in the hoops landscape. Good results for last 5 years but only 1 year that was remotely in the at large discussion.
 
brooklyn brownstone said:
Too much instability at the top of the A10. Dayton has been mostly consistent, but the wheel of the rest of the league hasn't lately led to consistently up years from teams who should have consistent at large hopes in UR, SLU, VCU.
Click to expand...

I’d say vcu has def been a little more consistent than Dayton in a10. More NCAAs. Goes further in a10 tourney. vcu is regularly going to a10 finals. Dayton has that high water mark of 19-20 when in line for national 1 seed. Counts for something but kinda like us we don’t know what was going to happen. Idk how they compare to vcu with A10 reg season finishes but likely correlates to the other things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiders4ever
97spiderfan said:
Yep, this the new normal for the A-10. A one to 2 bid conference most years and the top team better not win the A-10 tourney or you are looking at 1 bid only. For us, with our putrid OOC schedule, we are gonna have to win the A-10 tourney to dance this year. This will save this board having to do a lot of bubble watch discussion cause our name isn't gonna be on it.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm still planning to enjoy the bubbly debates .. after our 11-1 or 10-1 or 9-1 or 8-1 non conference D1 schedule.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 97spiderfan, gospidersgo and urfan1
GKiller said:
I’d say vcu has def been a little more consistent than Dayton in a10. More NCAAs. Goes further in a10 tourney. vcu is regularly going to a10 finals. Dayton has that high water mark of 19-20 when in line for national 1 seed. Counts for something but kinda like us we don’t know what was going to happen. Idk how they compare to vcu with A10 reg season finishes but likely correlates to the other things.
Click to expand...
I was really only gauging last 5 years when it has seemed A10 has been a 1-2 bid league most years (often getting 2 because of A10 tourney upset.)

VCU has been to 2 ncaas since 19-20 and they weren't an at large hopeful in at least one of those NCAA seasons where they finished 4th in the A10 (weirdly I cannot recall how they were viewed 2 years ago and if they won the tourney or got at large, or were even in conversations.)

But those 5 seasons reinforces the case that VCU are playing good, but not great overall basketball - not consistently high-level or in ncaa at large consideration most years. That's the case for most A10 schools. Dayton was a stone lock for NCAA at large in 2 seasons of the last 5 (last year and in 19-20) so I'll give them the nod.
 
spiderman said:
if all of our home conference games are ranked in the top 160, worst we can get is a Q3 loss.
if all of our road conference games are ranked in the top 135, worst we can get is a Q2 loss.

so that's good.

but with no weak teams in the conference, I expect a lot of teams within a few games of .500
while fun, that's not the formula for multiple bids.
Click to expand...
3 or 4 teams will separate themselves as they usually do. We just need to be one of them, and beat a couple of the other top teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Section9.RowD said:
Oh I'm still planning to enjoy the bubbly debates .. after our 11-1 or 10-1 or 9-1 or 8-1 non conference D1 schedule.
Click to expand...
If we go 12-1 OOC, and are sitting at 7-2 A-10 (19-3 overall), we will be on some bubbles out there. Not saying 19-3 will happen, but just saying I think it's possible to be on the bubble even with our OOC schedule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section9.RowD and urfan1
brooklyn brownstone said:
I was really only gauging last 5 years when it has seemed A10 has been a 1-2 bid league most years (often getting 2 because of A10 tourney upset.)

VCU has been to 2 ncaas since 19-20 and they weren't an at large hopeful in at least one of those NCAA seasons where they finished 4th in the A10 (weirdly I cannot recall how they were viewed 2 years ago and if they won the tourney or got at large, or were even in conversations.)

But those 5 seasons reinforces the case that VCU are playing good, but not great overall basketball - not consistently high-level or in ncaa at large consideration most years. That's the case for most A10 schools. Dayton was a stone lock for NCAA at large in 2 seasons of the last 5 (last year and in 19-20) so I'll give them the nod.
Click to expand...

Wait I thought vt4700 established 5 year historical is no longer relevant! No more 19-20. It’s gone and vcu wins the last 4 years.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wr70beh and 8legs1dream
VT4700 said:
If we go 12-1 OOC, and are sitting at 7-2 A-10 (19-3 overall), we will be on some bubbles out there. Not saying 19-3 will happen, but just saying I think it's possible to be on the bubble even with our OOC schedule.
Click to expand...
jeez, 19-3 should be more than a bubble, but I guess with this schedule ...
 
VT4700 said:
If we go 12-1 OOC, and are sitting at 7-2 A-10 (19-3 overall), we will be on some bubbles out there. Not saying 19-3 will happen, but just saying I think it's possible to be on the bubble even with our OOC schedule.
Click to expand...
Agreed, we would be. I don't think that is going to happen. I think we stub our toe at least twice in the OOC, as we normally do. And with this schedule, we simply cannot afford to do that this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wr70beh
brooklyn brownstone said:
19-3 could be a ranking or get votes, but a closer look at our schedule would make any bubble talk vanish.
Click to expand...
See JMU last year. Ranked early, zero chance of at large. And they had a W at Michigan State on their resume. We are going to have to win the Auburn game to have legit bubble chances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
A10 should be stronger this year. Unfortunately for teams like JMU in conferences like CAA, it takes essentially perfection to be considered for at-large given how much the conference schedule likely weighs down the metrics. For fun, I took the average between Kenpom and Tovrik (used from Atlantic10Stats) rating for our conference games this year and used that as a pseudo-NET to see how teams may line up. Definitely not an exact way of doing this, but one way to look at it and discuss before official NET rankings come out several weeks after the season starts. Corresponding NET quadrant is in parenthesis.



GW - 137 (Q3)
@ UMass - 119 (Q2)
@ George Mason - 92 (Q2)
Rhode Island - 134 (Q3)
@ Bonnies - 129 (Q2)
SLU - 107 (Q3)
Davidson - 146 (Q3)
@ GW - 137 (Q3)
@ VCU - 47 (Q1)
Duquesne - 128 (Q3)
@ Davidson - 146 (Q3)
Loyola - 85 (Q3)
Fordham - 153 (Q3)
@ La Salle - 166 (Q3)
@ SJU - 84 (Q2)
VCU - 47 (Q2)
@ Dayton - 49 (Q1)
George Mason - 92 (Q3)

Q1 - 2
Q2 - 5
Q3 - 11
Q4 - 0

Ideally some games like SLU and Loyola at home and away games at Davidson and/or George Washington would be Q2. If we could end up with 9-10 Q1-Q2 opportunities during conference play with no Q4 games, that would be excellent. Last year we only had 6 Q1-Q2 games in regular season conference play and 2 Q4 games. The tough part is we will like have at best 2 Q1-Q2 opportunities in OOC play (@Auburn, and maybe @Charlotte or neutral game in Gulf Coast if it happens). Whereas last year we had 5 Q1-Q2 games OOC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo
97spiderfan said:
See JMU last year. Ranked early, zero chance of at large. And they had a W at Michigan State on their resume. We are going to have to win the Auburn game to have legit bubble chances.
Click to expand...
Our conference is way better than JMU's. They had no chance to get quality conference wins. We do.
 
and that includes a conference win vs the only NCAA lock team. Two bad OOC losses and zero great OOC wins negated all hopes.

Cannot rely on the A10 based on the past 5 years of data. Either you get all the good wins or suffer losses that really hurt. Not enough volume of great games bc of a lack of top tier teams that are all upside to play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo and GKiller
brooklyn brownstone said:
and that includes a conference win vs the only NCAA lock team. Two bad OOC losses and zero great OOC wins negated all hopes.

Cannot rely on the A10 based on the past 5 years of data. Either you get all the good wins or suffer losses that really hurt. Not enough volume of great games bc of a lack of top tier teams that are all upside to play.
Click to expand...
But, we were only 16-6 thru 22 games last year. Even with a much worse OOC schedule, 19-3 would put us in much better shape this year.
 
VT4700 said:
But, we were only 16-6 thru 22 games last year. Even with a much worse OOC schedule, 19-3 would put us in much better shape this year.
Click to expand...

did we win or lose the 22nd game AT VCU to make us 19-3?
 
Oh I get it. But if we'd beaten UNI and Wichita St to be 18-4 last year, would we have been getting at large buzz? The metrics - I'm trying to recall here, so correct me if I'm mistaken - said otherwise by end of year, no? I thought it would have bumped us like 5 NET spots up to have won those games, and neither were a Q1 game that would have added value as a win (instead of being an anchor as a loss.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back