Mooney pushing to expand NCAA tournament

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,593
1,663
113
I'll forgive not necessarily considering Canadians to be the traditional definition of international, but you know we have a Finnish guy on the roster, right?
Just a quick look at recent foreign players.

Duinker - Didn't pan out in my opinion. Came off the bench, had a small role. But nothing significant.
Cayo - would deem his career a success. Very effective and athletic forward. If only he could shoot.
Goose - lets see how this year plays out, but he was a very important part of our NCAA team last year. More of a role player in my book, but a very solid role player/contributor.
Tomas - Didn't work out for UR or Lafayette after transfer. But still playing professional in Lithuania.

So from this group 2/4 really. Your not going to hit a home run with every recruit, but I just always felt this was an area we didn't look at much. Now with the transfer portal - it might be a moot point.
 

Ferrum Spider

Team Manager
Feb 17, 2010
2,495
2,239
113
Bingo. I'm not for expansion, but money talks. Also tend to agree with trap, more mediocre p6 teams will be the beneficiary.
128 is absurd. I can live with it being more teams if it guarantees more mid major teams in but we know that's not what its for. Should implement a rule if you're below .500 in league play, can not earn an at large bid. I dont want to see any 17-15 teams in the tournament from major conferences. Another creative way to go about this is to just eliminate conference tournaments, regular season champ advances and then have a giant play in tournament or regionals up to 16 of them with 4 teams in each bracket. The winner of that regional advances to the field of 64. Just don't blanket add teams without more pre-requisites to make the tournament.
 

SFspidur

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 5, 2003
15,814
10,306
113
Speaking of international players, Davidson just got a Kiwi.
 

CarolinaSpider

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Nov 27, 2006
4,990
1,687
113

Always loved this Canadian
That team had 3 guys who jump out of the gym and provide hi light dunks: Kevin Smith, FCM and Darrius Garrett.
They were fun to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nathanw19

spider23

Spider's Club
May 31, 2002
14,101
7,687
113
Dedmon Center USA
ruhoops.proboards.com
Hunter Adams looks legit - lil McKillop off to a really good start on the trail. Will be interesting to see how Collin Tanner compares to Durkin and Adams in coming years. combine these two with Reed Bailey and that is some talent that appears to have a ton of upside.
 

spider23

Spider's Club
May 31, 2002
14,101
7,687
113
Dedmon Center USA
ruhoops.proboards.com
I'm not really counting the Canadian guys - when my kid played AAU several years ago, there were always Canadian AAU teams at the top tourneys in the North East, and even at the not top tourneys. We should be monitoring/recruiting Toronto same as we would Philly or NYC.

Yes, Goose, but he was five years ago. And Verbinskis was playing in Florida when we recruited him. If he was a guy we got a commitment from in EU and tracked him to IMG or wherever, yes.

I am fine with not recruiting overseas if can get enough US guys - which seems to be the case last few years - but it does seem like an opportunity lost. As noted, St. Mary's has made a living off of it, and Davidson and Dayton thriving too.

For instance, if Hunter Adam is a top 150 talent (don't know that he is), lot less competition for Davidson to land him I imagine.
 

spiderman

Spider's Club
Jun 7, 2001
16,927
6,214
113
anyone know if the recruiting periods (live period, quiet period, dead period, etc) and visitation rules are the same overseas?
 

brooklyn brownstone

Team Manager
Oct 31, 2007
2,655
535
113
we also had the guard from Canada who transferred to Siena, one of the missed recruits of a few years ago. Think he was Canadian, right?
 

fan2011

Graduate Assistant
Apr 21, 2014
4,098
2,694
113
Expanding the field likely means more NCAA games for mid majors, which means more money, which could translate into more parity with power conferences. Just a theory. Or maybe basketball will consider the NIT part of the official post season tournament and say we are already at 25%.
 

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,593
1,663
113
You'll get a few more mid-majors, but no, this is about the P6 trying to get more bids for themselves...they'd undoubtedly get the vast majority of the new ones.
100% - this means more P6 schools.

I don't like it - tourney is fine where its at.

My suggestion - keep the NCAA and NIT where it is at, and get rid of those other CBI tourneys.
 

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,593
1,663
113
I have no issue with the CBI and TBC. They're not NCAA-run events, are separate from the real tournament, and give guys an opportunity to play more games. Doesn't hurt anybody.
Agree - I just think they are shameless money grabs for lower division teams. Pay to play schemes to allow coaches to say they made some post-season and get more playing/practice time.
 

SFspidur

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 5, 2003
15,814
10,306
113
Organizers understandably want to make some money. Attendance is low and TV rights aren't worth much, so the money needs to come from somewhere.

Everybody knows CBI/TBC participation is meaningless for résumé purposes (unless maybe for low majors where even NIT is more or less out of reach), and I say hats off to those who want more playing/practice time. (I also totally get those who turn down opportunities as not being worth the money or just wanting to be done with an underachieving season.)

Heck, even the NCAA makes teams bid for playoff games in some sports. Not pay-for-play, but I'm not sure pay-for-host is a whole lot different.
 

I-M-UR

Graduate Assistant
Mar 10, 2006
5,476
1,975
113
We could easily end up with a tiered system. Like football. The way the A10 is performing we could easily end up in A2. each tier with their own tournaments. Because we kept a million dollar, losingest coach in Spider history we missed our opportunity at being in a A1 conference
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,771
4,512
113
8 times on bubble? Name them I can't. Maybe 5. His other points valid, I've been harping on scheduling equity as the biggest obstacle forever. Also Connor McCaffery might have something to say about the Iowa comment lol. btw I think we broke Iowa since that game. & the other McCaffery just left the team for anxiety.

 

SpiderK

Spider's Club
Dec 3, 2014
10,149
6,045
113
8 times on bubble? Name them I can't. Maybe 5. His other points valid, I've been harping on scheduling equity as the biggest obstacle forever. Also Connor McCaffery might have something to say about the Iowa comment lol. btw I think we broke Iowa since that game. & the other McCaffery just left the team for anxiety.

I did agree with Mooney’s argument over our lazy reporter’s.
 

RichmondNative

Starter
Dec 16, 2018
949
1,073
93
I don’t even understand why this is being discussed. There are already 100 D1 teams participating in the postseason, which is more than the “required” 25% of participating schools. There are just 2 NCAA sanctioned tournaments - a major one and a minor one. I don’t think this type of arrangement exists in any other collegiate sport.

In addition if the percentage is what matters, who is deciding how many colleges/universities should be in Division 1? 360 schools? Ridiculous. Let’s drop the total number of participating D1 schools to 272 and keep the “ultimate championship“ at 68 teams.

I also find it hard to believe that coaches aren’t compensated if they make the NIT. I am sure there is a bonus for any postseason birth. A bunch of whining about nothing.

I think I would be more concerned about what NCAA football is doing to basketball and the possibility of teams exiting the NCAA and forming there own league.
 

SpiderGuy

Team Manager
Oct 13, 2014
2,036
1,735
113
Agree - I just think they are shameless money grabs for lower division teams. Pay to play schemes to allow coaches to say they made some post-season and get more playing/practice time.
More banners - yay. Big accomplishment.
 

brooklyn brownstone

Team Manager
Oct 31, 2007
2,655
535
113
8 times on bubble? Name them I can't. Maybe 5. His other points valid, I've been harping on scheduling equity as the biggest obstacle forever. Also Connor McCaffery might have something to say about the Iowa comment lol. btw I think we broke Iowa since that game. & the other McCaffery just left the team for anxiety.

So I took a quick look. I'd say 6 is a number you can say UR was def. in consideration. If you want to be pretty generous to Moon, I can get that number up to 7.

At large consideration, using his own qualifier of "coming down the stretch."

In consideration seasons (6 total)
09/10 - got at large
10/11 - def. in consideration/likely, but won A10 for auto
13/14 - were 17-8 mid season before fading to 19-14. Leans yes to consideration with "down the stretch" criteria.
14/15 - yes, first team out of ncaas.
19/20 - def. in consideration, ncaa at large likely.
20/21 - were 11-4 with UK win mid. Feb. before fading. Def. in consideration by criteria.

Leans no/not really in consideration seasons - (4 seasons)
08/09 - were 12-13 mid season. No.
12/13 - were 14-11 mid Feb. Not really. Finished 19-15.
16/17 - If you want to be very generous to Moon. 19-11 end of reg. season BUT losses to ODU, Bucknell, Oral Roberts. But 15-9 mid season with those OOC losses, not sure how in consideration you can say UR was.
21/22 - Not really. Never in good enough shape record-wise or quality-win-wise. Very bad home loss to Saint Joe's. Don't see it for consideration purposes coming down stretch.

Def. no seasons (7 total)
05/06
06/07
07/08
11/12
15/16
17/18
18/19

This season (1 total) - right now would fall into the Def. no but if they put together a Jan. run could move up to the Leans No category, as at large consideration from a weak A10 with UR's spotty OOC resume seems unlikely in most scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section9.RowD

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,771
4,512
113
So I took a quick look. I'd say 6 is a number you can say UR was def. in consideration. If you want to be pretty generous to Moon, I can get that number up to 7.

At large consideration, using his own qualifier of "coming down the stretch."

In consideration seasons (6 total)
09/10 - got at large
10/11 - def. in consideration/likely, but won A10 for auto
13/14 - were 17-8 mid season before fading to 19-14. Leans yes to consideration with "down the stretch" criteria.
14/15 - yes, first team out of ncaas.
19/20 - def. in consideration, ncaa at large likely.
20/21 - were 11-4 with UK win mid. Feb. before fading. Def. in consideration by criteria.

Leans no/not really in consideration seasons - (4 seasons)
08/09 - were 12-13 mid season. No.
12/13 - were 14-11 mid Feb. Not really. Finished 19-15.
16/17 - If you want to be very generous to Moon. 19-11 end of reg. season BUT losses to ODU, Bucknell, Oral Roberts. But 15-9 mid season with those OOC losses, not sure how in consideration you can say UR was.
21/22 - Not really. Never in good enough shape record-wise or quality-win-wise. Very bad home loss to Saint Joe's. Don't see it for consideration purposes coming down stretch.

Def. no seasons (7 total)
05/06
06/07
07/08
11/12
15/16
17/18
18/19

This season (1 total) - right now would fall into the Def. no but if they put together a Jan. run could move up to the Leans No category, as at large consideration from a weak A10 with UR's spotty OOC resume seems unlikely in most scenarios.

Yeah the criteria is a little vague. Good recap, I wasn't including 20/21, we were 10-4 the st. marys MD game doesn't count & the UK game wasn't helping us too much. But I'm sure that's in Moon's group and I can see the argument. So go with 6. The Lean No's are all better described as No's. The number is 4 when we were on bubble or in as at large on selection sunday.
 

97spiderfan

Spider's Club
Feb 2, 2005
13,244
9,020
113
Honestly, I don't know why any Spider fan wouldn't be in favor of expansion. We've seen our success rate with Moondog with 68 teams. It could only go up if there were more slots.

The NIT is meaningless, why not just wrap those teams into an expanded NCAA field.
 

SFspidur

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 5, 2003
15,814
10,306
113
D-I Board of Directors has approved the modernization recommendations.

The board also approved in concept recommendations relating to NCAA championships. The Division I Board of Directors Finance Committee will be asked to review those recommendations, which include consideration of:

  • Expanding access to NCAA championships to include 25% of active Division I members in good standing in team sports sponsored by more than 200 schools.
  • Increasing championship budgets and elevating the travel experience for student-athletes.
  • Focusing on revenue generation opportunities through championships and considering how revenues are distributed to Division I members in line with championships performance.
The board directed sport committees to consider whether bracket expansion is appropriate in their respective sports — in concert with broadcast partners and stakeholders within those sports — and whether changes should be made to bracket composition for championships.

Also, unlike the men's NIT, the NCAA does not currently run the WNIT, so the NCAA is going to create a new 32-team postseason tournament for the women for gender parity.

 

MrTbone

Head Coach
Apr 27, 2005
7,821
5,634
113
I’m totally ok bashing CM for a variety of things but he has a point about scheduling legit home and homes.

Although as evidenced by this season, more P6 games doesn’t look like it would have helped our chances much.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,771
4,512
113
I've understood Moon's points on NCAA tourney expansion and scheduling inequity, but Rothstein tweet response was not the only thing confusing. The Mooney clip was too.

So he proposes Rothstein get the A10 not Richmond 8 H&H's (presumably from P6 but never stated I assume just missing context from clip), gets paid by A10, but would publicly divulge why schools decline to play Richmond?? But Moon u just said it was about the league so that was odd follow.

Also aren't we already paying another prominent media member JOE LUNARDI to essentially do this? Who else can we get Bill Walton? We r cornering the market. If the Rothstein RFP goes through maybe we can at least get a rebate on Joey Bags.

Lastly someone should clue Mooney into A10 rankings. While there r varied ranking systems the A10 is no longer coming in 7th or 8th. It used too but I think it's been 8th maybe once in last 6 years. Which is a long enough trend. More like 10th best conference.
 

Latest posts