P5's will rarely give us a non-P5 a home and home now.
so I agree. get in a neutral exempted tournament when we can. schedule 3 P5 road games. add 6 home and home's vs solid mid majors. plus a few home buy games.
Scheduling ideas
- Thread starter VT4700
- Start date
so I agree. get in a neutral exempted tournament when we can. schedule 3 P5 road games. add 6 home and home's vs solid mid majors. plus a few home buy games.
Good post. I 100% agree that scheduling changes are irrelevant for us if and when we have seasons like this past one. And, as you said, while an extra IC game against LaSalle, St Joe's, or UMASS might seem no different than Coppin St, playing NET teams around 200 is a lot better than 300+. As bad as we seemed this year, our NET of 159 would be a lot better for A 10 teams than all of these extra 300+ NETs they play, and you also have to factor in we had 3 top 100 teams in the A-10, so that right there is 6 extra top 100 games for the conference.
From a league standpoint, the goal should be do what is best to get the most teams in the dance. A few years ago, 20 IC games were discussed, but they stayed at 18. Well, since then, the league continues to struggle. Without our run in 2022, we were a 1 bid league just like 2023. Our conference NETs looked terrible, and our 3rd place team had a NET of 134. Yes, we all need to do better OOC, but that is only one part of it. The other part is have less 250+ and 300+ teams on the schedule, and 20 IC games would help with that if the 2 extra IC games are replaced appropriately. Like you said, it's worth having the discussion again, and I hope they are doing that.
I'm not convinced we couldn't find 200 NET buy games if we wanted them. I think the 300 NET opponents are a choice on our part.
Why do you think it hurts the bottom teams? If you are 4th in your pod, my proposal has 2 extra games against the other 2 teams who are 4th in their pod. St Joe's, LaSalle and Richmond had NETs of 200, 224, and 159. St Joe's played NETs of 301, 308, 326, 343, and 345. How would it hurt them to play a NET 159 and a NET 224 instead of 2 of these? LaSalle played 311, 300, 296, and 272. How would it hurt them? We played 354, 328, 317, 301, and 296. How would this hurt us? And, this dramatic difference is just being 4th out of 5 in your pod. Just think if you were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? You think it only "MAY" help those teams? Seriously?
Last edited:
They are, but it fits in with our organizational culture of just finding easy solutions and pads Mooney's W-L record, so it is a win-win for management.
And yes, I would love for us to have a play anyone anywhere mentality ala Temple and Cheney, that is the absolute anti-thesis though of our program. I could see VCU doing this because they actually care about winning and making NCAA tournaments down there.
The more I think about the differences between VCU and UR athletics, the more I find myself aligned with VCU's culture and repulsed by ours. I'm an alum so of course my loyalty rests with UR but man any casual fan of hoops in the area is gonna hop on the brand that both values and delivers winning. Why does no one see this?
I guess this is why VCU can charges thousands of dollars for season tickets and ours cost $150. Why does no one see the money we are leaving on the table by just not caring very much about winning.
LOL. The 'new enough fan" talk again. I graduated from Richmond well before many on here, and as I have said many times, I remember Johnny Newman before he became Jumpin Johnny Newman. And, yes, I very much remember a few years back when the A-10 had some OOC scheduling things in place. Tell me again how that worked out? Or, look at my previous post at some of the NETs that were played and then tell me how that worked out. So, yes, good luck with that.
Last edited:
We have 13 OOC games and the A-10 had 300+ games all over the place. How would having more than 13 OOC games be better?
The A-10 is struggling right now. I am hoping they get together and do something about it. The OOC schedules are very questionable. Teams have mentioned it's hard to schedule. I am mentioning what might help, and it is something that the league previously discussed. I also threw in an idea of how this could work with 15 teams. Sounds like some of you have an attitude of no, we're good, A-10 is fine, we just need to have a better team. As if us being better will magically make the other 14 teams schedule better and have better NETs. I must say I am surprised by the reactions.
your schedule doesn't trick anyone into letting you in the dance. you're either good enough or you're not. if you schedule weak, you have to win a ton of games. schedule strong and you still have to win a good number of them, and it's tougher. especially on the road.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I agree, VCU only lost 7 games and were not even getting a sniff from the NCAA committee or Joe. The A-10 is in the crapper.
The tougher scheduling requirements used to work really well for the A-10. We got six teams into the tournament in 2014, and that was the year AFTER Temple and Xavier left the league. We definitely miss those two teams, but the league proved that it could thrive without them.
The problem in recent years is that programs like GW, St. Joe's, UMass and Rhody have been down, coupled with us never making the tournament until last year. Those are big hits, because not only are none of those teams making the tournament, but you've also had three anchors in Duquesne, LaSalle and Fordham basically just taking up space almost every year, and collectively all those bad teams bring down the computer rankings of the Daytons, VCUs, SLUs and Davidsons.
I actually agree with the premise of what VT is saying, which is that we just need to find a way to collectively be "less bad" as a conference. But I don't think playing more games against each other is the solution, at least not right now. We need our bad teams to be not as bad and our mid-level teams to be a little better, and then playing more games against each other could help more than hurt or have no impact.
The problem in recent years is that programs like GW, St. Joe's, UMass and Rhody have been down, coupled with us never making the tournament until last year. Those are big hits, because not only are none of those teams making the tournament, but you've also had three anchors in Duquesne, LaSalle and Fordham basically just taking up space almost every year, and collectively all those bad teams bring down the computer rankings of the Daytons, VCUs, SLUs and Davidsons.
I actually agree with the premise of what VT is saying, which is that we just need to find a way to collectively be "less bad" as a conference. But I don't think playing more games against each other is the solution, at least not right now. We need our bad teams to be not as bad and our mid-level teams to be a little better, and then playing more games against each other could help more than hurt or have no impact.
Fordham had the right idea for a bad team and what we've long wanted them to do. Play a super weak OOC schedule that you can go 12–1 against and get your NET to be around 120. Then head into conference play and not drag anybody down too much.
Unfortunately, it then turned out they were one of the best the conference had to offer.
Unfortunately, it then turned out they were one of the best the conference had to offer.
yeah, I don't like scheduling mandates. what Fordham did certainly worked for them. and if each team does what works for them, it helps the conference.
My schedule? I am not trying to trick anyone. Just trying to improve things, and I think this helps. I did mention a 15-5 IC record looks letter than a 13-5 IC record, but that is just a fact. Right now, a 13-5 A-10 team is probably not getting an at large, but maybe a 15-5 can. If we aren't getting at larges anyway, the extra IC games can't hurt you, but could maybe help you.
My proposed schedule would help the NETs. And, I guess I just don't see the negative some of you do. I hear why play LaSalle twice? Well, it might not be LaSalle, it could be a much better team or teams, and even if it is a LaSalle type, I will ask again how is that any worse than all the 300+ teams all over the schedule? And, with all the multiple 300+ games all over the place, it seems pretty easy for the A-10 to get together and say you can still play 300+ teams, but we don't need to play 4, 5, or 6 of them, so we are going to 20 IC games and we need to not schedule so many garbage 300+ games. Why not see what that would do for a conference, and a conference NET, that is really struggling right now?
Maybe it worked for them, but imagine the reaction on here if we did that, went 12-1 IC with that schedule, finished 3rd in the A-10 and had a 134 NET and never came close to the bubble.
No question the bottom A-10 teams drag things down, but I think my proposal would help thier NETs some, and also keep in mind, if you are 1st in your pod (top 3) you are getting 2 more IC games against the other 2 1st place pods. And if you are 2nd (4th thru 6th), you get 2 more games against that group. So, it would significantly help the top teams if they replaced 2 300+ games with a couple top A-10 teams. We could be talking an extra Q1 win or 2.
But of course the conference can only go .500 against itself. So you're guaranteeing a couple more games of .500 in place of some bad OOC opponents where the conference would likely go .750 or better.
In some cases, a 20-game A-10 schedule could certainly help. In others it may hurt. But it all starts with the conference not sucking in the first place. If we don't have good NETs heading into conference play, it doesn't matter if we play 18 or 20.
In some cases, a 20-game A-10 schedule could certainly help. In others it may hurt. But it all starts with the conference not sucking in the first place. If we don't have good NETs heading into conference play, it doesn't matter if we play 18 or 20.
sorry. didn't mean "your schedule" as in VT4700's proposal. I meant "your schedule" as in a school's schedule.
I like your proposal.
like I said ... to me you are who you are.
Fordham was able to go 12-1 with that schedule.
if they scheduled tougher their results would have been worse. they still wouldn't be on the bubble. and their fans would have had less excitement.
UVA and VT would be ideal.
we already play VCU and Mason.
the rest I can take or leave.
looking back at our schedule last season there's not much I don't like about it ... other than some of the results.
Right, the NET from a conference perspective is locked in as soon as the OOC is over. Not sure, we would suck less after 11 games versus 13, but that is the math for this calculation to work.
Bottom line, unless the A-10 collectively does a hell of a lot better than it did this year in OOC, it won't make much of a difference if we play 16, 18, or 20 IC games.
People in Richmond would rather see W&M, Liberty, ODU, JMU, and Longwood over these PA and NJ schools that no one has ever heard of.
ok, replace Coppin State.
I didn't like scheduling FDU ... but now they're known.
your schools are comparable to Bucknell.
but there's nothing wrong with Northern Iowa, Charleston, Wichita State, Syracuse, Temple, Toledo, Drake and Clemson.
that's a pretty tough mid-major schedule.
We don't care about winning. We would rather talk about lowering expectations and transition years than figuring out a way to win. With this philosophy, what difference does the schedule make? We are one of the problem schools in the A10. By the way, anyone hear how Pleasure Fest went last weekend? Thats the kind of BS UR cares about now, not winning basketball games.
So I am late to the party here but have some thoughts (some of which overlap with others above). First of all. I think VT proposal is almost certainly very close to neutral for the conference over time when it comes to NET or whatever.
I think right now, the avg. in conference game (by NET) is probably slightly better than the average conference wide OOC game (by NET) so in theory it might help the conference. BUT - - as pointed out here, I dont think you can count on the avg. OOC being the same after we go to this. I just don't see teams giving up their games on the schedule that they consider wins to keep swing games etc. And I think this is very much how many (most) teams think about scheduling - - they are trying to be sure they get some number of wins on the schedule. So they schedule "wins", "losses" and "swing" games. Wins aren't necessarily guarantees but high(er) probability of winning and "losses" aren't guaranteed either, but lets just say one teams "wins" are another teams "losses". Swing games are the ones in between. Doesn't mean there aren't tougher ones and easier swing games, but probabilities aren't the same magnitude. Swing games will make up the bulk of any teams schedule (and include most conference games) and tend to determine seasons outcomes. Might win a "loss" game or vice versa but it the swing games that make or break you.
So, when teams go to schedule, they are managing this strength of schedule - generally via their mix of games. They cant truly control it, but they certainly try. So, after VT proposal they will have two less games they can control and I believe (as others have stated) that they wont give up any "'wins" in exchange for these added swing games. They may give up another swing game or even a "loss" game for these new swing games but not a "win". So the lower OOC games (by NET) stay and some higher ones disappear and it could actually lower the overall game quality of the conference. However, either way, I think its substantially neutral from a NET perspective overall to the conference.
But there is more than NET to consider. From a fan perspective - - - I'd much prefer more OOC to conference games just for some more variety. From a coaches standpoint - - the proposal probably makes scheduling easier and less stressful just because you have fewer pieces that have to be worked. From a player perspective - - i think they'd all prefer as many OOC "experiences" (i.e. Power 5 or tournaments etc) as possible and this reduces (albeit slightly) those opportunities. I actually think it hurts recruiting (vs other conferences (and assuming they dont do the same thing schedule wise) because there will be fewer places to point at the schedule and say "see how great it is". Again, minor impact, but maybe some slight detriment.
So, on the whole, I think its just plain old neutral. Not a ton of effect at all vs current. That said, I d advocate against it because Id like to see UR change our individual scheduling philosophy. Just go play a bunch of P5s on the road - - one and done unless and until scheduling convenances for both schools arise again. I dont see us wanting to drop any of our "wins" (home games!) for these, so we will drop some of our swing games for these "losses" and just roll with it. So that means we need more OOC games then fewer to try and do this, so for that reason, Id oppose the proposal. I do note though, that they arent mutually exclusive goals - we can take more P5 games even with an 11 game OOC. I just think its easier if we have 13 and we'd be more likely to do it with 13 to play with than 11.
So thats my take - - - lots of bits and pieces from what others have said - - - just my weighting landing on being opposed (but with a HUGE caveat that my primary driver is that i want us to take on more P5 one off road games!
I think right now, the avg. in conference game (by NET) is probably slightly better than the average conference wide OOC game (by NET) so in theory it might help the conference. BUT - - as pointed out here, I dont think you can count on the avg. OOC being the same after we go to this. I just don't see teams giving up their games on the schedule that they consider wins to keep swing games etc. And I think this is very much how many (most) teams think about scheduling - - they are trying to be sure they get some number of wins on the schedule. So they schedule "wins", "losses" and "swing" games. Wins aren't necessarily guarantees but high(er) probability of winning and "losses" aren't guaranteed either, but lets just say one teams "wins" are another teams "losses". Swing games are the ones in between. Doesn't mean there aren't tougher ones and easier swing games, but probabilities aren't the same magnitude. Swing games will make up the bulk of any teams schedule (and include most conference games) and tend to determine seasons outcomes. Might win a "loss" game or vice versa but it the swing games that make or break you.
So, when teams go to schedule, they are managing this strength of schedule - generally via their mix of games. They cant truly control it, but they certainly try. So, after VT proposal they will have two less games they can control and I believe (as others have stated) that they wont give up any "'wins" in exchange for these added swing games. They may give up another swing game or even a "loss" game for these new swing games but not a "win". So the lower OOC games (by NET) stay and some higher ones disappear and it could actually lower the overall game quality of the conference. However, either way, I think its substantially neutral from a NET perspective overall to the conference.
But there is more than NET to consider. From a fan perspective - - - I'd much prefer more OOC to conference games just for some more variety. From a coaches standpoint - - the proposal probably makes scheduling easier and less stressful just because you have fewer pieces that have to be worked. From a player perspective - - i think they'd all prefer as many OOC "experiences" (i.e. Power 5 or tournaments etc) as possible and this reduces (albeit slightly) those opportunities. I actually think it hurts recruiting (vs other conferences (and assuming they dont do the same thing schedule wise) because there will be fewer places to point at the schedule and say "see how great it is". Again, minor impact, but maybe some slight detriment.
So, on the whole, I think its just plain old neutral. Not a ton of effect at all vs current. That said, I d advocate against it because Id like to see UR change our individual scheduling philosophy. Just go play a bunch of P5s on the road - - one and done unless and until scheduling convenances for both schools arise again. I dont see us wanting to drop any of our "wins" (home games!) for these, so we will drop some of our swing games for these "losses" and just roll with it. So that means we need more OOC games then fewer to try and do this, so for that reason, Id oppose the proposal. I do note though, that they arent mutually exclusive goals - we can take more P5 games even with an 11 game OOC. I just think its easier if we have 13 and we'd be more likely to do it with 13 to play with than 11.
So thats my take - - - lots of bits and pieces from what others have said - - - just my weighting landing on being opposed (but with a HUGE caveat that my primary driver is that i want us to take on more P5 one off road games!
Agreed. There was nothing wrong with our schedule. In fact, I would say our OOC schedule was one thing last year that really exceeded expectations. And I like our philosophy of going to find other good mid-majors and schedule home and homes with them.
We just have to win more games.
I'm hearing SpiderK thinks we would have higher attendance for home games against VMI and W&M vs home games against Syracuse & Clemson.
While VT thinks more games against URI & LaSalle instead of Syracuse & Clemson would help our NET.
As a conference, I think my idea of having the 2 extra games matched up by pods would be a huge benefit. A top 3 team like Dayton could pick up extra games against VCU and maybe St Louis. Even Fordham this year at 134 is better than a 300+. Same for the other 2 top 3 teams. Pod 2 teams would get 2 more games against conference pod 2 teams. It improves chances to get Q1 or Q2 wins IC. I don't know why some of you don't think that would be good for the conference. You talk about scheduling, and say some teams are not going to give up all of these 300+ games. Well, pod 5 teams will play the other pod 5 teams twice, so this will not hurt the top teams anyway. And, if the bottom teams don't want to help the conference NET by scheduling better, that is more reason to have the pod 1 teams play each other and pod 2 teams play each other with the 2 extra IC games. I guess I just can't see the negatives some of you see.
I am using an example of what might have happened with a pod schedule of 3 pods, 5 teams each. If VCU, St Louis and Dayton are in the same pod, then they would probably be 1, 2, and 3 in whatever order, and play the crossover 1, 2, and 3s from the other pods. The A-10 can make the pods whatever teams they want for the 1st year of a 20 game IC schedule and then schedule from there. And, they can use conference standing to determine pod order, or NET. Either one would be fine. You have your 5 team pod, play each of them twice, then each team gets ranked 1 thru 5 in their pod, and you play the crossover teams from each pod twice.
Right now, we play VCU, GW, Mason, and Bona twice. If we have a good year next year, with my proposed format, we would add a couple good A-10 teams to the list of teams we play twice. If we struggle again next year, we still replace 2 of our 300 type games with a couple A-10 teams. Maybe one is Davidson and they have a good year the following year. I don't see how that would be bad for us or the conference, but I guess most on here do. I just can't see the negative you and others do.
Last edited:
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the concept but there are a couple of premises I think are flawed. One is that you’re presuming the additional IC games are better than the OOC games they’re replacing. There’s nothing in here guaranteeing that.
Second, it presumes that a program wouldn’t be better off being “directed” to go out and just find two OOC candidates that project as better options than whatever the two IC additional games project as NET/SOS boons. I’d rather have the flexibility as a program to try to pick from, say 200 possible options, rather than leave it to chance it’ll come from my 14 conference foes.
I’m not saying it’s a terrible idea, but I don’t think it works well for the A10 and not as well as a directive from the league to schedule more deliberately. That actually did seem to have a positive effect for several seasons.
I agree w Tbone. If u go to 11 u r not losing the “cupcake” games. Teams will still be looking to schedule those buy games & home wins regardless. So the premise that u would be substituting 2 better A10 games for 2 of your weakest ooc games I don’t buy. Those kind of games will be there at 15, 13 or 11 games but at 11 games now they just make up a higher percentage of your ooc games. Yeah u hope teams r not just taking 300+ teams for those but hard to legislate it out. If u do have them u need the mindset of blowing the doors off your opponent bc that seems to work w NET. But bottom line I think our best teams have made their postseason profiles a little more so from ooc than IC. Personally I’d rather go out & regularly play hard ooc schedules. I think it’s better for the program. & I don’t want to rely on A10 more than we already do. But as stated b4 Mooney’s a10 results of predicted vs actual is not very good. Why would we choose more of those games. I think r chances r a little better in ooc where teams r not as familiar w us.
Well T-urmite, I didn't say that. I said that Richmonders would want to see UR play Virginia schools rather than NJ and PA schools like FDU. NJIT, Monmouth, Rider, Bucknell, Lehigh, Lafayette, or Saint Francis. By the way Syracuse is in New York and Clemson is in South Carolina.I'm hearing SpiderK thinks we would have higher attendance for home games against VMI and W&M vs home games against Syracuse & Clemson.
While VT thinks more games against URI & LaSalle instead of Syracuse & Clemson would help our NET.
Our schedule just turned out to be okay this year. I am not sure if we won a lot in the OOC, would we have been in good position in the A10 - we likely would have been in similar boat of VCU and Dayton, won a lot of games, but not mentioned. Here were our good games at the end of the day for our OOC.
@Charleston
@Toledo
Drake
@ Clemson
We went 1-3 in these games. Our next tier of lets say "solid" games were
Wichita St
Syracuse
Temple
We went 1-2 in these games.
Some games that didn't pan out for us that maybe we thought would be better.
Northern Iowa
But really - the A10 hurt as much as anything. VCU, St. Louis, Dayton and probably Fordham, and Mason were the only games that good this year in the league. That means 9 other teams were dragging everyone down - too many bad teams this year - the league was not balanced and it hurt everyone.
@Charleston
@Toledo
Drake
@ Clemson
We went 1-3 in these games. Our next tier of lets say "solid" games were
Wichita St
Syracuse
Temple
We went 1-2 in these games.
Some games that didn't pan out for us that maybe we thought would be better.
Northern Iowa
But really - the A10 hurt as much as anything. VCU, St. Louis, Dayton and probably Fordham, and Mason were the only games that good this year in the league. That means 9 other teams were dragging everyone down - too many bad teams this year - the league was not balanced and it hurt everyone.
Similar threads
