I agree we should play 13 OOC games. Since you asked for opinions, I will give you mine. I think Mooney went into this year saying let's play the best schedule out there, anyone anywhere. Then, we got Lunardi's help, and Mooney shared this with him. Then, Lunardi said, "we can get you a schedule full of great teams. Anyone can do that. But, is that all you care about or do you want the best schedule for a mid major at large hopeful"? Mooney wisely said, "of course, the schedule that gives us the best chance at an at large bid". The result, so far, is a very good, if not great, schedule for a mid major at large hopeful.
OOC Tracker - Lunardi Impact
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
I agree we should play 13 OOC games. Since you asked for opinions, I will give you mine. I think Mooney went into this year saying let's play the best schedule out there, anyone anywhere. Then, we got Lunardi's help, and Mooney shared this with him. Then, Lunardi said, "we can get you a schedule full of great teams. Anyone can do that. But, is that all you care about or do you want the best schedule for a mid major at large hopeful"? Mooney wisely said, "of course, the schedule that gives us the best chance at an at large bid". The result, so far, is a very good, if not great, schedule for a mid major at large hopeful.
No AD would do that. This makes no sense at all. What good would it do us to play @ Duke, @ UNC, @ Kansas, @ MSU, and @ Kentucky this year if we got nothing in return?
Maybe so, I don’t get why CM made the schedule statement to begin with, but it’s water under the bridge. Perhaps Joe did steer him differently. That’s one plausible scenario.
Would you concede it will be a failure on both CM and Lunardi if we don’t max out the OOC game count? I don’t really want to pile up wins against 250-343 (or whatever this year’s number is) but wins no matter how bad at least get the committee looking at you.
That wasn't the question. The point was that if we had really wanted to create the hardest OOC schedule, we could have done so. I just explained how.
You have to start somewhere, we really really should have canned Mooney after the first 20 loss season. Kids want to play at UNC or Duke. If you have a successful program you ABSOLUTELY go and play one game like this. You have to build and build excitement and use this type of game each year as a recruiting tool. You don't think Jacob Gilyard would like to be on TV in Rupp Arena. Wow. If this guy is associated with our program, the mentality is shining through with clarity.
Agree. A second benefit to playing top competition is that players tend to "play up" when facing a top opponent.
Granted, sometimes the talent differential is so great that you get crushed, but in general terms, the better the competition, the better you will play. Moves your program to a higher level.
Same theory applies in reverse. Look at the dogs on the Spider schedule the last few seasons. Playing, AND losing to the lower tier causes the program to plummet.
Well obviously scheduling in general isn't. But doing what I outlined would be. I wouldn't recommend it and most coaches wouldn't either. But if you truly want to play the absolute best teams and nothing but that, you simply agree to play anyone anytime at any place.
It is much more difficult to craft a schedule that allows you a good chance to win the right number of games against solid competition while playing some notable games at home.
It is much more difficult to craft a schedule that allows you a good chance to win the right number of games against solid competition while playing some notable games at home.
The P6 schools are pressured by their conferences to have strong ooc schedules too. Plus, conflicting schedules prevent a lot of games. Especially, in the ooc schedules you have tournaments, you have travel times, you have holidays, and you have competition for games.
So, while I understand your desire to have a great ooc schedule, there’s a lot more to it than making
phone calls.
Given your defense and analysis of last year’s schedule your credibility for labeling it as such is lacking I’m sure you realize.
and occasionally you create forever memories like Phog Allen Field House
As DT used to say, you can't beat em' if you don't play em'
I said last year's schedule was "not that different" than some previous schedules of ours. I stand by that statement because last year's schedule, though really bad, was not that different than some previous years when we had bad, if not real bad, schedules. I don't think "really bad" is that different than "bad". Obviously, you do and that is fine. But, keep on with this relentless attack of yours if it makes you feel better.
Last year out OOC was 334th in difficulty, one of the 20 easiest schedules in D1. The second easiest schedule we had in the past decade was 245th, almost 100 places harder. Richmond's OOC schedules were in the top 200 in 7 of the last 10 season, and just two seasons ago we had the 34th toughest schedule in the country. Last years schedule was an incredible outlier in terms of difficulty, and I can't see how it can be argued otherwise.
My point simply is that if we wanted to make a real effort to play the hardest schedule in the conference, we would have been able to do so. It wouldn't have even required us doing what I suggested to the degree I mentioned. There could always be conflicts, but those can be worked out if both teams want to play the game.
Yes, last year's schedule was really weak. And, so was ours when we had the 245th hardest and 2 others outside of 200. And, a few others close to 200. You kind of backed my point up here, but no worries. If you think there is a huge difference in 245 and 334, that is fine, but I think once you get close to or past 200, there is not a lot of difference. If you look closely enough, there just isn't that much difference in a schedule around 200 and one in the 300s. So, sorry, but I stand by my "not that different" comment. No big deal if you disagree.
Last edited:
I think you’re right that the difference in SOS value is probably marginal out past 200. No one seriously contemplating an at large profile is likely to be in the conversation at those kinds of numbers.
It is still significant to be say 200 versus 334 though, if just by how bad it is to be that low in the overall scheme of things.
I thought last year was 338 out of 353? And the comparison was 2014-2015 177 out of 351?That the bottom 4.25% of schedules was not very different than bottom 49.57%?
Post #61 https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/as-the-season-approaches.11039/page-2
Post #61 https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/as-the-season-approaches.11039/page-2
Last edited:
Thanks for helping with my point.
5 opponents ( IUPUI, Wake, ODU, South Alabama, High Point) were exactly the same, and the others when we had the #177 schedule were Radford, W&M, Northeastern, Howard, JMU, No. Iowa, Pepperdine, NC St. No matter the final number, the 2014-15 schedule was bad with only 2 P6 teams out of 13. Do you really think it was a good schedule or a lot better than last year's? I never said last year's was better than that or any others. I simply said it was not that different.
Not rationally, no. But hold on....
Yes, someone is now arguing that #177 is not that different from #338 (or #334, whatever your metric).
Money quote from that thread:
I guess Mooney and Bob Black didn't get the memo when they acknowledged exactly that on Spider Sportsline.
Last edited:
You are way too caught up with numbers, which are not always a tell all. Both schedules were really bad. And, I didn't think we scheduled weak intentionally because we had other years where we scheduled weak also. But thanks for pointing out my opinion being wrong. Good for you if you have never missed on an opinion.
The reality that we lost 20 games last year with one of the top 20 easiest schedules in the country is beyond sobering. I know we are getting Nick back and adding Blake but becoming a tournament team this year would be one hell of a turnaround. Rooting for it but I can't fault even the most ardent spider fan for being pessimistic.
The numbers are for out-of-conference scheduling, so we had one of the 20 worst non-conference schedules last year. But, going 6-7 against that is still really bad.
Oh my god. No, he didn't back up your "point". He showed with actual stats, how wrong your point was.
And, if I recall correctly, you argued last year that our OOC was actually going to be much better than what most of us saw it for, a horrible OOC. You argued that all last offseason and even into the season. So, now you change your tune and acknowledge that it was indeed a really bad schedule.
Last edited by a moderator:
Going 7-6 against the 2014-15 OOC wasn't disqualifying from the NCAA at large conversation.
Going 6-7 against the 2018-19 OOC certainly was.
Going 6-7 against the 2018-19 OOC certainly was.
97's frustrations got the best of him.
A year ago, "not that different" meant our 2018-19 schedule wasn't going to be as weak as we all thought.
Now, "not that different" means our 2014-15 schedule was a lot weaker than we all remember.
It's enough to make anybody dizzy.
A year ago, "not that different" meant our 2018-19 schedule wasn't going to be as weak as we all thought.
Now, "not that different" means our 2014-15 schedule was a lot weaker than we all remember.
It's enough to make anybody dizzy.
Back on topic....thank you.
We used to schedule 2 or more ranked teams OOC each year. Even got some at the Robins Center.
What was the last ranked team we actually scheduled? At Florida in 2013-14?
Just need the will.
Yes, it seems that we like to schedule weak p6 teams and tout the "name" instead of the game. We can do better, we need new leadership.
If the moderators feel I crossed it, than they can talk to me. In fact, you can report me to them, if you like. I'm not doxing anyone like Ulla has but 4700 is blatantly lying right now about what he said and I am calling him out on that. And yes, when you lie repeatedly on here and when someone calls you out with actual facts and then you say that supports your points when it actually does the complete opposite, you are making a joke of yourself.
So, maybe I do get frustrated that a poster can come on here and just lie over and over again, change their story and context repeatedly.
S-man, if you recall I made an incorrect post a few months back about a recruit. You called me out on it and I realized I had shared some incorrect and false points in my post. I promptly apologized for my error to the board. Do you see the difference?
I think lying is way too strong. his projection turned out wrong. that happens.
a weaker schedule was obviously appropriate last year. and we weren't even good enough to take advantage of it. we all agree a stronger schedule has merit this year. I don't think the strongest in the A10 makes any sense, so I don't want to hold CM to it even though he said it. others do, but I doubt because they want the strongest schedule in the league. they want to prove CM wrong.
a weaker schedule was obviously appropriate last year. and we weren't even good enough to take advantage of it. we all agree a stronger schedule has merit this year. I don't think the strongest in the A10 makes any sense, so I don't want to hold CM to it even though he said it. others do, but I doubt because they want the strongest schedule in the league. they want to prove CM wrong.
Lot of salient points made by Fan2011, mite, Broc, 97 etc. There are ~350 teams I don't know in what ranking system of virtually anything a change of ~150 spots isn't significant. It is in fact very different. Indeed it was in regards to that 14-15 schedule too. Old thread is great. " I don't think we scheduled weak intentionally" is even better than "not that different". Too bad VT4700 didn't take the bet I offered on the schedule. Last year it was hey keeping track of message board bets is hard, this year it was sure I'd take the bet oh wait you are too angry and all betting requires meeting up on a street corner.
The moving target/reinvention/misrepresentation is so very UR AD-esque.
I simply had said VT4700 lacked credibility on scheduling due to last year comments. Obviously true but it's only gotten worse. I think a lot of us aren't afraid of a debate but he seems to argue just to argue so he can then claim he's getting attacked. It's like the mother who fakes an illness for her kid to get attention. Munchausen by proxy. Had to google that one.
How can you schedule a ranked team without knowing if they will be ranked or not when you play them? Are you talkin last year? What does that prove? I have seen Alabama get some top 25 preseason love this year. Does that count?
Good lord. There is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and then there is retroactively rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm not even sure what the second option is a metaphor for, but you guys are doing it.
Since you enjoy calling me out so much, I'll try to defend myself here. What exactly was the scheduling bet? That last year's would be easier than 2014-15? I never said it would not. Why is that so hard to understand? If you can find a quote where I said it would be harder, please share it and I will admit I was way wrong on that.
The bottom line is you are attacking me for an opinion I had, and, sorry, but I stand by that opinion. I just don't think the schedules were that different. In your opinion, they were. Which is fine, but if you can use a 177 number to back your point, why can't I use the fact that we only played two P6 teams out of 13 in 2014-15 to back my point? We both have opinions on the subject. No one has to be wrong here.
As for meeting on a street corner, those were yours or someone else's words, not mine. I simply said I have no desire to bet with someone I don't know who gets a little angry on a message board. I think it would be a good idea for you to read through the messages on this thread, without seeing who posted them. Then, look at the angry posts, the ones that went into attack mode, and the ones that replied just to argue. Then ask yourself if it's really me or is it others who have a problem.
urmite already shared the thread. Post 85. 2-1 odds I gave u. You didn't want to bet it even though u said schedules were very similar. Your reasoning was "Sorry, I don't bet on everything that I think will happen. My goodness, this is a simple message board. If we all bet on all of our opinions on here, we would never be able to keep up with the money exchanges."
https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/as-the-season-approaches.11039/page-3
Fortunately we have data that validates whether an opinion is right or wrong.
https://richmond.forums.rivals.com/threads/oddo-to-the-ville.11644/page-2#post-280002
Post 75. The street corner term was me but that's because you wrote "Posting with someone like you on a message board is one thing, but actually meeting them to collect a bet? "
street corner = meeting them to collect a bet. You clearly were saying we would have to meet at a random public place. Tho probably safer than your place of employment. Also it's 2019 if u haven't noticed.
in a rear view mirror, the 2014-15 schedule was impressive.
but at the time I had no idea Northern Iowa would be an RPI boosting game. they ended with a ridiculous RPI of 14! W&M and High Point were both in the top 100? how often does that happen? Those looked like 200+ games.
but at the time I had no idea Northern Iowa would be an RPI boosting game. they ended with a ridiculous RPI of 14! W&M and High Point were both in the top 100? how often does that happen? Those looked like 200+ games.
Similar threads
