Agreed. And to be clear, we were part of the problem, we were dragging the rest of the league down as well.
Scheduling ideas
- Thread starter VT4700
- Start date
I think we were hoping games like Northern Iowa would not have dragged us down and that Syracuse would have been better.
And yes - we dragged teams down as well.
And yes - we dragged teams down as well.
Had we gone 6-1 in those 7 games, we would have had ourselves in position for an at-large, but we wouldn't have had a ton of margin for error in league play since the league sucked.
Ok, so Longwood & Radford over Villanova & Rutgers…
And there were emojis if you read to the end…
Our issue with OOC this year was 1) We didn't win enough games. 2) Games like Syracuse and Temple and especially Northern Iowa - did not turn out well for us. And you can say - that its just 3 games. But unless you schedule tough top to bottom - 3 games can really sway your schedule one way or the other, especially when you mix in FDU, VMI, and W&M and Coppin State - you have little margin on those "hopeful" games, but when those teams have bad years - like those 3 did - they end up hurting more than helping.
"The benefit of a better A-10 schedule." Exactly my point of my scheduling proposal. VCU, Dayton, and SLU would have 2 more games each against A-10 opponents, so those opponents would all get the benefit of playing them twice. You might say, well, this could hurt teams when they play because one team will win, but one will lose, but if the A-10 is not getting at larges now anyway, how could it hurt? And, I'm thinking if VCU wins both extra games, 17-3 IC for VCU would have looked a lot better to the committee than 15-3.
Our schedule was fine this year. We didn't win nearly enough. I have heard teams won't replace bad OOC games if they had 2 more A-10 games. Well, that is up to the team. If you are serious about getting an at large, why wouldn't you? Our schedule would look better no matter which extra 2 A-10 teams we played twice if we replace 2 300+ games with them. Even if it is 2 lower teams, and when we finish good in the conference, we would likely get a couple quality A-10 teams added twice the following year. I see no negatives with it. I have heard on here it takes flexibility away if you only have 11 OOC games. How? Every team in the A-10 plays multiple garbage OOC games. If they choose to keep all of them and lose a couple quality OOC games, that is on them, not on a lack of flexibility.
Of course the possibility exists that a 20 game IC schedule could help. If u r looking for acknowledgement of that u have it. But to deny any possible negatives associated with it it seems strange to me. I just happen to think there is greater possibility of it hurting.
Remember we also seem get into these MTE events that require bad games to secure a good game. Not always, and hopefully it is a thing of the past, and we solely get into good 2 or 3 game MTEs. But we've certainly seen that before. So that's 1 reason u can still have them. We have trouble getting into the stronger MTEs imo. And yeah u can say just dump the 300+, well I hope we dump them at 13 anyway. maybe they r 250+ but I don't see those games going away bc teams want some home Ws even if u r playing a hard schedule elsewhere. In theory easy to say just dump them, in practice in reality I don't really see it happening, so if they'll be there better to have them out of 13 games than 11.
Also u have to factor the A10 is trending down. That is without dispute. Can it reverse the trend? Sure maybe, but there remains a reasonable probability it does not or even gets worse, then 2 more IC games could easily be more harmful. I've said this before and maybe u don't agree but haven't we underperformed vs. expectations pretty regularly in A10? I think the stats bear that out. Why choose more games in which u have shown to underperform.
Lastly I want to play a national schedule. I can't exactly define it but to me it's power conf teams, good mid majors, & from a variety of leagues. More A10 games when u already have 18 doesn't do that. Yes, scheduling is harder, I've always wished the NCAA could mandate some equity there, but u have to work harder at it.
MTE issue is definitely a thing of the past, as long as we're considered attractive enough to get decent opponents.
They can only be a max of three games now and even an event with just two games still lets you schedule to the 31-game max, so gone are the days of two campus rounds against NET anchors in order to get two decent neutral site games.
They can only be a max of three games now and even an event with just two games still lets you schedule to the 31-game max, so gone are the days of two campus rounds against NET anchors in order to get two decent neutral site games.
Good thought so I remember us talking about those changes. Last year's 2 game event was fine, & we've gotten into some other decent ones, but overall I think this is area we can be better. In past the 2 MTE dogs at home were not ideal & seemed to also rely on Mooney's agent Rick Giles too much. it will be interesting to see where we end up this upcoming season.
Discussion seems overly complex. Want post season opportunity, just win.... whether in conference or OCS. 18 or 20 IC games has no bearing.
Totally agree, but you get what you deserve if you finish 12th. And, we would still have the ability to play the same number of majors and quality mid majors as we did this year with 13 OOC games. Just play 3 300 type games instead of 5. We can control that. With 15 IC teams now, I just like the idea of playing 6 IC teams twice. It does allow for more chances to get some more IC Q1 or Q2 games. Someone would get them..it would be up to us to finish high enough in our pod to get the best games possible.
Last edited:
My guess is we are headed to 20 IC games soon, especially after looking at how many teams played so many awful 300+ games last season. It was discussed a few years ago, and we are now at 15 teams. I was throwing out an idea of what a 20 game IC schedule could look like. I do think it would help, but I agree, 18 or 20, just win.
But this is my point. Under your model I’m stuck with those choices.
Under the alternative, we have 200 some teams to try to schedule against.
Why would we want to do this?
Well, I just don't see your point. You aren't stuck with anything worse because you still would have 11 OOC games. Teams can control who they schedule with these games. All 15 teams played multiple garbage OOC games last year. You act like my proposal means teams have to give up their good OOC games. They can schedule whoever they want. It's on them who they schedule. None of the 15 teams would have to lose a quality OOC game if they added 2 more IC games. None. A 20 game IC schedule would not hurt any of the 15 teams if they did not want it to. Look at all the 300+ and high 200s garbage teams the A-10 played last year. Looking at us, how would this hurt us? Why would we have to still play 296 NET Bucknell, 301 FDU, 317 W&M, 328 Coppin St, and 354 VMI if we added 2 IC games? I'm not buying your 200 teams to choose from instead talk under the alternative because all 15 A-10 teams had 200+ teams to choose from and they all chose to play multiple garbage teams.
Fwiw Jim Phillips ACC commish today said “It (the Net) does not reward teams that play 20 conference games versus 18 or less”.
Now I don’t know if true or not but here is the ACC commissioner disagreeing with u Vt4700 & saying going to 20 would not be a scheduling positive.
Now he’s bitching about not enough acc bids & using the “eye test” which is simply code for giving out power conf bids bc they get the best most athletic recruits & look the part.
So again I don’t really trust him & I don’t think the NET has hurt P6s at all, I think the old RPI was less favorable to them, but sharing bc he put it out there. it would probably take more detailed analysis & research on a per league basis.
Now I don’t know if true or not but here is the ACC commissioner disagreeing with u Vt4700 & saying going to 20 would not be a scheduling positive.
Now he’s bitching about not enough acc bids & using the “eye test” which is simply code for giving out power conf bids bc they get the best most athletic recruits & look the part.
So again I don’t really trust him & I don’t think the NET has hurt P6s at all, I think the old RPI was less favorable to them, but sharing bc he put it out there. it would probably take more detailed analysis & research on a per league basis.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Mooney trying to salvage a double digit winning record. It is going to be very close.
seriously. what's the point of the 5 year deal if we're paying retail?
like they'd ever turn us down for a buy game. guess we're in the mood to fund VMI. maybe they can get a line of credit based on our 5 year contract.
or maybe we get first dibbs on the next Jake Stephens or any QBs...
Because, as I said much earlier in this thread, the whole conference will be scrambling every year to find 13 OOC games. Every team in the A-10 will play multiple OOC games like this, which is just one of the reasons why I stand by saying a 20 game IC schedule would be best for the A-10. The main argument on here against my wanting a 20 game IC schedule and 11 OOC games was "it would hurt our OOC scheduling flexibility". Well, you guys tell me how flexible we are trying to be when we just scheduled OOC games with VMI thru 2027.
nobody is scrambling to find teams to offer $90k buy games to.
home and home's are tough. getting a big name team to host you is tough.
there are hundreds of teams willing to take $90k to play a game on the road. call any Ivy, SoCon, PL, AE, Big South, NEC, etc ... team.
home and home's are tough. getting a big name team to host you is tough.
there are hundreds of teams willing to take $90k to play a game on the road. call any Ivy, SoCon, PL, AE, Big South, NEC, etc ... team.
Whether they are scrambling or not, they are always playing them. Pretty much every A-10 team playing multiple teams like this. And, like you said, it's harder to get a lot of quality games, so the result is sometimes as many as 4 or 5 of these VMI type games. So, why not play 20 IC games, and a couple less of these games? Some years maybe our 4th or 5th worst OOC games would be replaced by bad A-10 teams, but other years we might get an extra game or two against one of the top teams. So, it's either a wash or a much better schedule.
Last edited:
Maybe we saw how bad inflation is and wanted to lock in at a low price point 🤷🏼♂️
I’ve got a group of guys who play every Sunday. We would take 25% of this and lose on purpose
Unfortunately, I’m thinking the same. Hope not and Chris don’t be that guy.
I can't believe it's really $90K to VMI. I could see that for someone from the Midwest or farther away, but VMI? It's a two-hour bus ride.
Similar threads
