Many teams have already announced their full OOC schedules. And it seems like we only know a few sparse details about ours at present. Hopefully someone is working on this.
Next year
- Thread starter VT4700
- Start date
I have Tyne, Hunt, Neskovic and Beagle as 4 of our starters. Only starting position that I think really is up for grabs is the 3.
Actually, I would use this as proof of my argument. Neither of them were in the at-large conversation and of course neither had strong OOC schedules last year either.
I agree with this and why I think UR has a good shot at winning the A10.
This is what I was suggesting. Again, I am talking about at-large bids ONLY. If you don’t have hype you aren’t getting one - especially a mid-major. I also am not saying one specific pre-season poll is some sort of magic predictor. What I am saying is that a CONSENSUS is building that says UR is not a top tier A10 team. This simply means that they will have to prove everyone wrong and win the A10 championship in order to dance in my opinion.
This isn’t really that mind boggling. It also puts the Spiders in the underdog role, which seems to be the preferred position of the current mindset. Last, I am looking forward to the season and seeing what unfolds.
that could certainly end up accurate, but I think both Tyne and Beagle will be in a battle for a few months.
Tyne could be really good. I think he's a shooter but the numbers don't show it yet. the rest of his game is terrific.
White can shoot, has the highest assist rate of the guards, and is lightning quick. that plays.
GW3 ... the offer list is impressive. can't wait to see him.
According to D1 Docket's tracking, only 11 out of 364 have officially fully announced so far, but I definitely was hoping to have heard more pieces of ours by now.
UR and LUC didn't dance, but I think that had less to do with preseason hype than with OOC weakness.
agreed about Hunt. he'd be a perfect 6th man. but being Mooney's "best leader ever", it's unlikely he ever comes off the bench.
Listen to Rothstein’s podcast. The two are related.
It is also July and @SFspidur pointed out that most OOC schedules are not released, so things can definitely change. I am simply pointing out the current trend. It also is definitely much harder to predict outcomes with so many teams being rebuilt every year.
Plus, what else are we going to discuss in the offseason.
I guess you could compare last 4 teams in vs. last 4 out for the past few years and see if there is a relationship between pre-season rankings or not.
Davidson showed up 6th in the November 2021 pre season poll and got an at large. There is no relationship between pre season rankings and what the committee would do. No way. None. Zero. Why would the committee ever care about pre season rankings? There are very few mid major at larges, so of course it is very doubtful a team ranked low in their conference pre season will end up good enough to get an at large. This is because of how most mid major teams ranked low in their conference do during the season, not because of a meaningless pre season ranking.
Last edited:
I think the suggestion is that it is more subconscious than consciously taking preseason rankings into account. As in, if you start the season "up here" in the minds of people instead of "down there" it takes longer to knock you out of contention, and if you win a few later in the year people are like, "that's the team we thought they would be" and get the subconscious benefit of the doubt. I have no empirical evidence of it, but I buy it.
Excellent example. All the A10 has to do is send over 50% of its membership to the dance and at large here we come. Let’s go buy a bunch of lottery tickets.
Preseason ranking mean absolutely nothing for post season play. Post season play is heavily dependent on NET ranking and won/loss against 1st and 2nd quadrant teams.
Typically I agree, however last year Dayton certainly benefited from being highly regarded in the preseason. Still have no clue how they remained "safely in" despite losing to all the other top teams in the league and taking an early dive in the A10s.
It was all about their NET and their resume. Their wins over LSU, St John's, Cincy, and SMU carried a lot of weight and put them in a position where going 14-4 in the A-10 was all they had to do. Those OOC teams had NETs of 32, 37, 65, and 94 and their only 2 OOC losses were to Northwestern and Houston. With their wins, a 24-7 record, and no sub 100 losses, it's hard to disagree with them getting in. There is just no way the committee gave them any extra credit for a pre season ranking. That just makes no sense when they have the NET and everything else that they use, including 31+ games of data.
Last edited:
I'm not saying I think he is right, but he's not alone. I think a lot of these preseason rankings reflect the national reputation of the program. 3 for 19 is a terrible track record.
Correct, he is not alone. I like our roster a lot but I also really don't know especially in the portal era what other teams in the conference rosters look like. I think we brought in better players than VCU, which are ranked number 1, but VCU also retained some important pieces while we lost most of ours.
It is all hogwash, summer time banter, that will be meaningless once we step on the court in the Fall.
no clue how they remained safely in? their final net was 23. if they weren't safely in, they'd have to throw away the net calculations.
Well, it speaks to the flaws in the NET. Dayton's resume was propped up by OOC wins over mediocre P6 teams. None of their OOC P6 teams made the NCAA, yet they were all Quad 1 and Quad 2 wins. This is same benefit afforded to every P6 team in conference by the NET. Almost every P6 team has a high NET so every game is a Quad 1/Quad 2 team, despite the fact that many of those very teams are not tournament worthy teams.
So when Dayton lost in conference to us, George Mason, Loyola, the 1st round of the A-10 tourney, their NET barely budged and hence they remained safely in, despite on the court evidence that they weren't playing at the same level as say we were or Loyola Chicago was.
... at the end of the year, agreed.
the net is based on the full year's work. it's not just who's the best right then in March.
we can argue the net calculation components all we want but it's just math. Dayton finished 23rd. we were 73rd.
It's new math. Which we all can agree is complete nonsense.
maybe we can figure out Mooney's contract before we get to solving the NET. baby steps.
But, the committee looks at all 31+ games. Dayton was 24-7 with no sub 100 losses, and multiple good OOC wins. Their NET did not move much with their loses because a loss to 70-100 type team doesn't hurt u much at all, especially a close loss and their conference losses were by 5, 5, 4, and 2 points.. Their OOC results put their NET high and a 14-4 A-10 record with no sub 100 losses (all close) kept it high. It's really not that hard to figure out. 24-7 with that resume would get any team in.
I hate the NET, and am not a fan of the quads either, but right now it matters and it is easy to see why Dayton was safely in based on what the committee looks at.
Who were their good OOC wins? Because they didn't beat a single NCAA tournament team in the OOC.
assuming this is a serious question, they won at Cincinnati (22-15, net 37), and at SMU (19-13, net 65).
also beat St Johns (20-13, net 32) and LSU (17-16, net 94) in their MTE.
and what's really important to me in scheduling, they mostly stayed away from all the net/rpi anchors that we loaded up with ... teams ranked in the 300s.
our non-conference SOS was ranked 302. Dayton's was ranked 7.
where r u getting those #s? I don't think that's right. I see dayton 39 and Richmond 179 for OOC SOS. There are some varied sos metrics out there depending on who is formulating. Think I'm looking at NET OOC sos numbers. Which makes sense to look at NET because that's the committee metric and net sos factors in vs. somebody else's sos like kenpom etc. idk maybe I'm looking at wrong place.
regardless Dayton sos was a lot better just not as drastic as that...I don't think.
and to beat this drum again & again, we need to schedule hard in OOC.
Also, Dayton v Marquette H&H??...we were told those are impossible
Richmond Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2024 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Richmond Spiders with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.
Dayton Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2024 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Dayton Flyers with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.
Richmond Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2024 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Richmond Spiders with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.www.warrennolan.com
Dayton Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2024 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Dayton Flyers with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.
thanks. warren nolan is not using the Net sos but his own. which is fine so do a few others. but when everyone is talking NET NET NET we should also use the NET sos numbers imo. To use another doesn't make as much sense. Nothing against warren nolan, I think more of a baseball guy, he doesn't comes up as much in bball circles over other ranking systems. To be fair sos has always been all over the place, & he could be the most accurate who knows.
Agree. At the end of the day - humans are making the selection and its still at the end of the day, especially when you get to the last 8 teams competing for 2-4 spots, it becomes very subjective. And really at the end of the day - all we are talking about is those last spots. Teams like Utah State who make it as an 8-9 seed are not on the bubble, they are likely only discussed for a few minutes to find seeding. What we are talking about is some of those 12-13 seeds possibly and play-in at large teams. Cause that is where you are splitting hairs, and I think subconsciosly - pre-season rankings likely become a factor. Not a huge factor, but somewhere in there.
But again - it all comes down to the human making the selection. Some people could look at a team picked with higher pre-season rankings and then falling to bubble status as a team that didn't meet expectations and falling. And some might look at a team with little to no preseason hype that makes a run and gets to the bubble as a team rising. So while its probably there subconsciously - but going to differ from committee member to member.
Selfishly from a UR perspective - Mooney and team seem to do better when expectations are lower. I don't remember many times when we have been selected as a top 2-3 team in the A10 and live up to that. We seem to do better when selected lower and ahcieve higher results.
Few items of note...
- Torvik and Wins Against Bubble rankings will now be included on team sheets for the committee to consider.
- With the demise of the Pac-12, there will be an extra at-large spot (37) as of this year.
- Our buddy Keith Gill will be vice chair of the selection committee this season, moving up to chair the following season.
- Final Four, NIT semis/finals, and D-II and D-III championships games all in Indianapolis the same extended weekend in 2026 is pretty cool.
www.ncaa.org
- Torvik and Wins Against Bubble rankings will now be included on team sheets for the committee to consider.
- With the demise of the Pac-12, there will be an extra at-large spot (37) as of this year.
- Our buddy Keith Gill will be vice chair of the selection committee this season, moving up to chair the following season.
- Final Four, NIT semis/finals, and D-II and D-III championships games all in Indianapolis the same extended weekend in 2026 is pretty cool.
Men’s Basketball Committee Approves Single Site for 2026 Divisions I, II and III Championships and NIT, Adopts New Metrics for Team Sheets - NCAA.org
At its annual summer meeting this week, the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee approved Indianapolis as the host site for the 2026 Division II and III men's
www.ncaa.org
