ADVERTISEMENT

Next 6 games

UR80sfan

UR80sfan

Star
Jan 28, 2018
1,432
2,473
113
We currently have a NET rating of 50 and to get an at large bid we probably need to get it down to the low 40s. The next six games are going to make or break our season and will be "one of" the most difficult 6 game stretches we have had in a long time. It included 2 quad 1, 3 quad 2 and 1 quad 3 teams. I would think if we can go 4-2, over these games, which is not going to be easy, we will be in pretty good shape

After that it should be smooth sailing the last 10 games where I expect us to go either 8-2 or 9-1.
 
I really don't think it matters that much where our net ends up. As long as it's not too high. Last year, Arizona State and St John's got in with nets over 60 while Clemson had one in the thirties and did not get in. It's more important to win enough and beat the right teams. We want our opponents to have good nets, but our resume will be much more important than our net number.
 
Last edited:
Need to win one of the Dayton/VCU games. The four leading up to that area all games we should win if we are a good team. SLU is ok but not a team that should beat us in our gym. They only beat GW by five at home tonight. Meh. Mason is a paper tiger and got smoked at home by a meh Bona team tonight after getting killed there by VCU this weekend. Davidson is garbage. I can't figure out why, but they are. Clobbered by Rhody tonight. We always play well down there anyway. And Lasalle is Lasalle. Let's go 4-0 and then win one of the next two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nathanw19
Agree on the above EL. Davidson freaking sucks this year. #FireMckillop. SLU still cannot shoot, and still is coached by Ford. Cannot lose that one unless we just get physically dominated and do not show. Mason gives us trouble, but shame on us if we lose to them or LaSalle. If the Robins Center is packed and lowd, I think we have a good shot vs. Dayton.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spider93
Davidson lost a couple players unexpectedly, including Frampton, who left the team early in the year for personal reasons. He hit 100 3s last year. Goodmunson hasn’t been the same player as last year. All that said, you know McKillop will have Davidson playing well at some point, probably right around A10 tourney time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo
RE;Davidson is garbage. I can't figure out why, but they are.

1. Pritchett out
2. Frampton left school
3. Axel not playing as well
4. Grady isn't as good w/ out the above 1,2 3 and Peyton Alridge on the floor
5. Lee-Korean freshman-hurt
6. Brankovic doesn't like contact inside
7. The rest of the roster is not athletic
 
  • Like
Reactions: SouthJerseySpiderFan
UR80sfan said:
We currently have a NET rating of 50 and to get an at large bid we probably need to get it down to the low 40s. The next six games are going to make or break our season and will be "one of" the most difficult 6 game stretches we have had in a long time. It included 2 quad 1, 3 quad 2 and 1 quad 3 teams. I would think if we can go 4-2, over these games, which is not going to be easy, we will be in pretty good shape

After that it should be smooth sailing the last 10 games where I expect us to go either 8-2 or 9-1.
Click to expand...

Let's worry about SLU and not get ahead of ourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChoppinBroccoli, nathanw19, whampas and 1 other person
VT4700 said:
I really don't think it matters that much where our net ends up. As long as it's not too high. Last year, Arizona State and St John's got in with nets over 60 while Clemson had one in the thirties and did not get in. It's more important to win enough and beat the right teams. We want our opponents to have good nets, but our resume will be much more important than our net number.
Click to expand...

From the NCAA website explaining the NET ranking system....

The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season

So you are trying to tell us the primary tool for evaluating teams does not matter. Sure there will be exceptions from time to time but it's pretty dense to say it doesn't really matter what our NET is. And your comparison to the three teams mentioned doesn't hold much water as those are P6 teams who have many more opportunities for Q1/2 wins than we do. It is even more important for mid majors to have a low NET to be considered for an at large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spider93, ChoppinBroccoli and whampas
URWilk110 said:
From the NCAA website explaining the NET ranking system....

The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season

So you are trying to tell us the primary tool for evaluating teams does not matter. Sure there will be exceptions from time to time but it's pretty dense to say it doesn't really matter what our NET is. And your comparison to the three teams mentioned doesn't hold much water as those are P6 teams who have many more opportunities for Q1/2 wins than we do. It is even more important for mid majors to have a low NET to be considered for an at large.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to tell you, but when quoting me, you left out where I said "as long as it is not too high." Just like when they used the RPI, they will use NET rankings more to see how a team did against its opponents NET numbers than worrying about a team's final NET number. That is why teams like St. John's and ASU, with NETs in the 60s, got in last year, and teams like Clemson and NC St., with NETs in the 30s, did not. You want a mid major example, as if that changes my point somehow? Well, Belmont had a worse NET than Furman last year, but they got in and Furman did not. If they were only focused on the team's individual NET number, than Furman would have gone. So, yes, I stand by saying it does not matter if we finish with a NET of 50 or low 40s (which was the post I was replying to), it is more important what our team sheet looks like.
 
Agreed - Davidson is bad this year for all reasons listed above, but I don't like betting against McKillop, not yet.

Quick look at their schedule - if they are going to turn things around, now will be the time for them. Here are there next few games.
St. Joes
UR
@Fordham
St. Louis
Mason

4 of next 5 are home with away game against terrible Fordham. If Davidson is going to turn things around - it will be in the next 2 weeks.
 
SpiderTrap said:
Agreed - Davidson is bad this year for all reasons listed above, but I don't like betting against McKillop, not yet.

Quick look at their schedule - if they are going to turn things around, now will be the time for them. Here are there next few games.
St. Joes
UR
@Fordham
St. Louis
Mason

4 of next 5 are home with away game against terrible Fordham. If Davidson is going to turn things around - it will be in the next 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
They could go 4-1 against that group and still be pretty mediocre. No road game is easy but we have played well at Davidson recently.

I can't project out the next 6, but:

3-3: Let's start checking out the NIT brackets
4-2, we basically tread water where we are right now, peripheral bubble team
5-1 puts us firm in bubble conversation, probably "in" on most brackets, but last 4 type variety.
6-0: This isn't happening, but we probably would be getting close to being nationally ranked at 18-3.
 
SpiderTrap said:
Agreed - Davidson is bad this year for all reasons listed above, but I don't like betting against McKillop, not yet.

Quick look at their schedule - if they are going to turn things around, now will be the time for them. Here are there next few games.
St. Joes
UR
@Fordham
St. Louis
Mason

4 of next 5 are home with away game against terrible Fordham. If Davidson is going to turn things around - it will be in the next 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

sounds like someone who hasn't watched a game. They have played a ton of road games-but they just don't look like a good team.

When you lose 40% of your starting line-up you're going to struggle
 
Trap, of course Coach McK is a guy who could do it but facts were given that had nothing to do with his coaching prowess. Only game that concerns me is UR game and a Spider win would end any hope for at-large. Mooney has it set up perfectly for that W. Spiders lose and you be quite right about McK.

And pay no attention LTLFTP's post, there is plenty who watch lots of b-ball and don't have a clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli
Arizona State and St. John's are irrelevant to our situation. They could afford a lower (or higher, depending on how you look at it) "NET" ranking. A mid-major cannot.
Arizona State had 11 high quality (Q1+Q2) wins last year. St. John's had 10.
We will be fortunate if we have 11 high quality games on our schedule at year end - and we've already lost two.

Clemson's NET was boosted by having no bad losses and playing in the ACC, but they just didn't win as many Q1 and Q2 games.

The Belmont/Furman comparison is more apt - and it's certainly encouraging that Belmont got in over Clemson.
Yes, Furman had a slightly better NET than Belmont.
Belmont was conference co-champions and lost to Ja Morant & Murray State in their championship game. Furman was T-3rd in their conference and didn't make their final.
Belmont had 5 high quality wins (3 OOC). Furman had 4 (2).
I'm sure it was a close call. Belmont's NET was in the 40s, too.

Can we be this year's Belmont? I don't know. Can Mooney win a conference regular season title (or even runner-up) for the first time in his career?
 
ChoppinBroccoli said:
Arizona State and St. John's are irrelevant to our situation. They could afford a lower (or higher, depending on how you look at it) "NET" ranking. A mid-major cannot.
Arizona State had 11 high quality (Q1+Q2) wins last year. St. John's had 10.
We will be fortunate if we have 11 high quality games on our schedule at year end - and we've already lost two.

Clemson's NET was boosted by having no bad losses and playing in the ACC, but they just didn't win as many Q1 and Q2 games.

The Belmont/Furman comparison is more apt - and it's certainly encouraging that Belmont got in over Clemson.
Yes, Furman had a slightly better NET than Belmont.
Belmont was conference co-champions and lost to Ja Morant & Murray State in their championship game. Furman was T-3rd in their conference and didn't make their final.
Belmont had 5 high quality wins (3 OOC). Furman had 4 (2).
I'm sure it was a close call. Belmont's NET was in the 40s, too.

Can we be this year's Belmont? I don't know. Can Mooney win a conference regular season title (or even runner-up) for the first time in his career?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this, but I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. When two teams with a net in the sixties make it, and two teams with a net in the thirties don't, seems like my point that there's a lot more to it than just an individual team's net ranking, is valid, whether you are a mid-major or not.
 
SouthJerseySpiderFan said:
Trap, of course Coach McK is a guy who could do it but facts were given that had nothing to do with his coaching prowess. Only game that concerns me is UR game and a Spider win would end any hope for at-large. Mooney has it set up perfectly for that W. Spiders lose and you be quite right about McK.

And pay no attention LTLFTP's post, there is plenty who watch lots of b-ball and don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

I watched all 40 minutes of last night's game and have seen 4 full Davidson games, plus watched everyone play in A-10 at least once, w/ the exception of GW.

I have definitely have a clue. I'm not saying McK isn't a great coach-i'm saying the cupboard is a little bare and unless, Pritchett comes back (doubtful), Frampton comes back (not happening) and Lee gets healthy (should be in a game or so), there is not much there other than Axel and Grady.
 
I have watched Davidson, and I agree - they look bad. But I could easily see them being a team that could go on a streak the next few games because they have some good players, and a very good coach.

Historically speaking - they have relied on McKillop's coaching and outside shooting to carry them in the past. They have usually had a good pairing of a good guard with a good big man. This year - they are lacking the big man, but they still have Grady. He had been struggling big time from 3 early in the year, and last game vs. URI he went 0-3. But the prior 3 games - he was looking like he may have turned it around. As he was 8-15 in 3 games prior. He is trying and being asked to do too much with all the pieces they have missing. But - he is still a very good player, who in my opinion - is a guy who can go off and score 30 points and lead his team to a W. There are very few players I would say in the A10 that could basically get their team a win on their own - and he is one of them. If he just gets one other guy to help him out on offense - they can win some games.

I think UR has the guys to wear out Grady and guard him effectively, but with the game being at Davidson - I just have a feeling it will be closer than you think. They also get St. Joes right before us to help build some momentum at home. Will be interesting to see what the line is on this game - but either way - I would not go near it.
 
spider23 said:
SDSU Aztecs lost 60% of starting lineup, including a guy on an NBA roster now, and have best big man and 6th man out. I'll check how they are doing and report back :):):):):):):)
Click to expand...

SDSU is a great story....but not exactly Davidson when it comes to colleges. I believe, I could be wrong, that two of SDSU's studs are GT, which Davidson can't take since there are no grad programs there (I think).

If Dayton lost 60% of their starting line-up during the season, they would be struggling as well.

Keep trying 23.
 
They have 0 stud grad transfers. They have Yanni Wetzel, who is a grad transfer from Vanderbilt, where he averaged 5 pts per game on a bad team and was not D1 before that. They do have Malachi Flynn, who is a traditional transfer. He is their "Blake Francis" - who I give Mooney credit for going out and getting. But yes, very good story - I honestly was not expecting too much from them pre-season. Dutcher is proving to be a very good coach, with likely 2 trips to NCAA in first three years - and one miss losing in MW championship game to a very good USU team.

I give Mooney credit for turning things around this year, but like how Dutcher is such a straight shooter, bitterly disappointed last year and puts high expectations on himself and the team, unlike Mooney slacker last 8 years.
 
VT4700 said:
I agree with most of this, but I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. When two teams with a net in the sixties make it, and two teams with a net in the thirties don't, seems like my point that there's a lot more to it than just an individual team's net ranking, is valid, whether you are a mid-major or not.
Click to expand...
That point is valid. There's a lot more to it than NET.
However, it does matter where our NET winds up. I think 80sfan is right, we need to be in the 40s or better. A NET in the 60s won't cut it for us.
 
I agree sixties would put us way up against it. As it would most teams. I just don't think there's a magic number where we need to be. It would help, but I don't think we have to be low forties like he said. I would rather be high forties or 50 with good wins, than low forties without them. That's all. But I think we all kind of agree on it anyway. All good.
 
VT4700 said:
I agree sixties would put us way up against it. As it would most teams. I just don't think there's a magic number where we need to be. It would help, but I don't think we have to be low forties like he said. I would rather be high forties or 50 with good wins, than low forties without them. That's all. But I think we all kind of agree on it anyway. All good.
Click to expand...
Yep. If we beat VCU and Dayton, I don't think we'll need to worry about our NET being at 60+ anyway.
And without good wins, we won't stay in the forties.
 
Hopefully we won't have to find out, but I could see us staying in the low 40s if we don't beat VCU and Dayton. They are both ahead of us, and losses might not hurt our NET much. Then, if we put up a bunch of wins against everyone else, the net could look good, but the resume could not.
 
I assume the Radford loss is the only one keeping us from having a NET equal to or better than VCU at the moment? If not, I don't understand NET.
 
This is how "Joey Brackets Lunardi" explains the A-10 quest for bids:

The A-10 was cruising through its best nonconference in years. Then Dayton lost at the buzzer to Colorado; VCU dropped one-possession games to Purdue and Tennessee; Richmond lost unceremoniously to Radford; and Duquesne fell from the unbeaten ranks. Suddenly the talk of three or four bids disappeared.

http://insider.espn.com/mens-colleg...ehind-bracket-how-many-bids-conference-expect
 
Looking at the road ahead...

Everyone is talking about the Dayton & VCU games.
The Davidson away game looks like a Trap game (no not the poster...) in every way except the eye test.
Hopefully GMU & Lasalle have fallen enough to not be dangerous away.
But nobody is mentioning at SBU & at Duquesne, both of which may be a true test.
 
urmite said:
Looking at the road ahead...

Everyone is talking about the Dayton & VCU games.
The Davidson away game looks like a Trap game (no not the poster...) in every way except the eye test.
Hopefully GMU & Lasalle have fallen enough to not be dangerous away.
But nobody is mentioning at SBU & at Duquesne, both of which may be a true test.
Click to expand...
Agree. Need to bring it each and every game. Radford should have taught us that. There's no one on the schedule that can't beat us.
 
urmite said:
Looking at the road ahead...

Everyone is talking about the Dayton & VCU games.
The Davidson away game looks like a Trap game (no not the poster...) in every way except the eye test.
Hopefully GMU & Lasalle have fallen enough to not be dangerous away.
But nobody is mentioning at SBU & at Duquesne, both of which may be a true test.
Click to expand...

A lot of trap games left. A lot of tough games left. No doubt about it. I would love to say we should win them all, but that's asking an awful lot. So, I would not be shocked if we lose to some middle A-10 teams, and I'm not sure that would hurt us that much if we do. I think most of us are talkin VCU and Dayton because those appear to be the definite quad 1 games, and both teams are likely to be near the top of the standings. So, if we can get two out of three there, that would be enormous.
 
VT4700 said:
A lot of trap games left. A lot of tough games left. No doubt about it. I would love to say we should win them all, but that's asking an awful lot. So, I would not be shocked if we lose to some middle A-10 teams, and I'm not sure that would hurt us that much if we do. I think most of us are talkin VCU and Dayton because those appear to be the definite quad 1 games, and both teams are likely to be near the top of the standings. So, if we can get two out of three there, that would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Duquesne is also a Quad 1 (For now, and a long way off...)
For now, GMU & LaSalle losses last night cost us 2 away Quad 2 games (now Quad 3).
https://bracketologists.com/conference/A-10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mojo-spider

2024 Richmond Spiders Football - Prologue - Towson

Replies
1
Views
489
UR Football Board
Gallipoli
Gallipoli
spider23

Opening Night Lineup - Just for fun

Replies
168
Views
9K
UR Basketball Board
MrTbone
MrTbone
spider23

X Factors

Replies
59
Views
3K
UR Basketball Board
urmite
urmite
mojo-spider

2024 Richmond Spiders Football - Prologue - North Carolina A&T

Replies
1
Views
790
UR Football Board
32counter
32counter
urfan1

Observations

Replies
19
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
spiderman
spiderman
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back