well given the fact that you're wrong almost about everything, I figured that Roche would be a bust.
UMass Game Thread - 7pm Wed ESPN+
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
when you are a 3 point shooter and you fall away on a vast majority of your attempts, you don't make as many.
Maybe that loss to UMass wasn't quite so catastrophic and had something to do with them being pretty good as well as us not playing well.
Had to laugh as the RTD yesterday morning published this little "hopium" article on VCU at large chances, apparently spurred by some announcer filling airspace during the SLU game. If you read beyond the headline, he then dives into all of the reasons, VCU is no where near an at large candidate, only to come back around and say but hey, maybe they are after all.
Either way, UMass put a nail in that coffin last night, just for good measure.
richmond.com
Either way, UMass put a nail in that coffin last night, just for good measure.
Does VCU hoops still have hope of building an at-large NCAA resume?
The ESPN broadcast dared to utter words long thought bereft of the VCU fanbase.Prior to tipoff of Friday night's 95-85 win at Saint Louis, commentators provided a synopsis of the
Normally I would say VCU is NIT bound, but given the changes in the NIT selection - I am not even sure that is a given for them or even us anymore. This is the new selection being used by the NIT - heavily based on NET it appears. And as you can see below - it heavily favors the big conferences, trying to get more of their teams in it, which I am guessing they hope results in more money. I personally don't like it - cause I think it really eliminates the small schools and leagues who have a league champion, but then lose their conference tourney. Take a team like Colgate. They are 14-1 in the Patriot League, and 20-8 overall. But they have a NET of 120+. Patriot league gives top 2 teams 1 bye. So they still have to win 3 games. What if they lose - they are likely out of everything because of their NET and get no reward for winning their league. I always thought this was a terrible move by the NIT, as it eliminated the smaller leagues. I liked the smaller leagues and league champs getting auto bids - it was a nice consolation prize in my mind. But now your likely to see a 15-11 Ohio State playing a 15-11 Villanova because they have good NET rankings due to their conference.
For the 2024 NIT, conference regular-season champions that do not win their conference tournament or are not otherwise selected to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship will not receive an automatic bid to the NIT.
Instead, the NIT will guarantee two teams (based on the NET rankings) from each of six conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern). The top two teams in the NET rankings not qualifying for the NCAA men's basketball tournament from each conference, regardless of win-loss record, will be selected. Additionally, the 12 teams automatically selected will be guaranteed the opportunity to host a game in the first round of the NIT.
Once the 12 automatic qualifying schools have been selected, the NIT Committee will select the 20 best teams available to complete the tournament's 32-team field. Based on the NIT Committee's evaluation, the best four teams of the 20 at-large teams selected will complete the 16 first-round hosts, with deference given to the "first four teams out" of the Division I Men's Basketball Championship, as determined by the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee. Additional teams from the six conferences with automatic qualifications are eligible to be selected as at-large teams and can be selected as hosts.
For the 2024 NIT, conference regular-season champions that do not win their conference tournament or are not otherwise selected to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship will not receive an automatic bid to the NIT.
Instead, the NIT will guarantee two teams (based on the NET rankings) from each of six conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern). The top two teams in the NET rankings not qualifying for the NCAA men's basketball tournament from each conference, regardless of win-loss record, will be selected. Additionally, the 12 teams automatically selected will be guaranteed the opportunity to host a game in the first round of the NIT.
Once the 12 automatic qualifying schools have been selected, the NIT Committee will select the 20 best teams available to complete the tournament's 32-team field. Based on the NIT Committee's evaluation, the best four teams of the 20 at-large teams selected will complete the 16 first-round hosts, with deference given to the "first four teams out" of the Division I Men's Basketball Championship, as determined by the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee. Additional teams from the six conferences with automatic qualifications are eligible to be selected as at-large teams and can be selected as hosts.
I actually like this better. The 12 P-6's were going to get in anyway. This will eliminate teams like your Colgate example and make it easier for a higher mid-major school like Richmond or VCU to get selected. I don't like the fact that the P-6 schools get the home courts. They may have bigger arenas, but how excited are their fans going to be about the NIT (think Florida State)....versus Richmond getting a sellout.
Even P6 schools typically draw like 3K for their first-round NIT games. Last year, for example:
Vandy: 5,290
Rutgers: 5,017
Michigan: 4,521
Cincinnati: 3,995
Wisconsin: 3,919
Florida: 3,023
Clemson: 2,697
Oregon: 2,431
Colorado: 2,363
Washington State: 1,871
Vandy: 5,290
Rutgers: 5,017
Michigan: 4,521
Cincinnati: 3,995
Wisconsin: 3,919
Florida: 3,023
Clemson: 2,697
Oregon: 2,431
Colorado: 2,363
Washington State: 1,871
the Richmonds and VCUs who come in 4th in their conference have chances for big wins and at-large bids all year.
I prefer the way it was, rewarding kids from Colgate who win their league. heck, have the lesser conference teams host all NIT games to level the field.
It’s a fair point Rick. I don’t like the new rules esp the home games tho I’d much rather face a power team in NIT. But I didn’t like the old rules either guaranteeing the lower level conf bids. Diluted the NIT. No reason to have say 8 of those teams in NIT. Some sure. A mcneese or JMU if they don’t get ncaa. Or another team with killer record. But every low conf team with say 8 or 9 losses probably isn’t deserving NIT just bc they won their reg season.
Go back to no rules and just pick the strongest most deserving field. These new rules r just trying to eliminate the power conf opt outs imo. This is their way to try to get them to play. It does make for a better field tho I have some empathy for the bottom tier leagues. It just remains to be seen if the opt outs don’t continue. Will a blue blood like Indiana in the NIL portal era that starts basically right after season over still play? Idk.
So Spiderman you're okay with a Colgate getting an automatic invite which might leave a 25-9 Richmond swinging in the breeze?
What they need to institute is rule requiring .500 or better incl conf tourney to get NCAA at large. Those less than .500 power conf teams don’t perform well in ncaa anyway. That would help both Ncaa (a few more mid majors) and NIT imo.
if that's the way the chips fell, yeah.
I don't base my opinions on just what works for UR. Colgate kids work hard too. they deserve something for winning their conference. I'd give them the NIT.
nobody in a top 10 conference should be excited about the NIT anyway.
Far enough, but I'm in favor of Richmond getting in anywhere we can and I don't care whose toes get stepped on.....pecking order
ok, but then it's hard to complain about high majors just looking out for themselves if we do the same.
Unless you win your conference and receive an automatic berth, you must have a winning record to earn at NCAA berth. And let's get serious, no team with only one or two more wins that losses is earning an at-large berth.
Do you mean .500 or better in conference games?
Yes, conference games. Sorry I figured that would be obvious, but I meant to and should have labeled it that way nonetheless.
btw u r wrong on 1-2 wins more than losses. Of course it's rare. But Richmond got screwed on that directly. Georgia received at large at 16-14. u should know that one. In 2001. The year we were on bubble and banned from CAA tourney. I think Villanova got in once w same record too.
But I disagree - I don't think it helps high-mid-majors (which the A10 sometimes is and sometimes is not). This will only benefit the P6 schools. They will fill the NIT now. Whereas before I feel the A10 usually could get 2-3 teams in the NIT - it might be only 1 or none from now on. Cause the NIT committee will have to select between a 20 win team with a Net 70+ in the mid-major league or 17 win team in the P6 with a net 40-50, and they will pick the P6 program every time and say they based it on NET.
Pretty much - that is why I hated the NIT moving away from auto bids for league champs. I thought the NIT was a good consolation prize, especially for lower league teams who win their league, but lose in their tourney. And it also limited the P6 teams filling the tourney. But with that removed - and the NIT stating clearly they will take 12 teams from the p6 with the highest NET not to make NCAA tourney. It stinks for the little guys - and we are the little guys.
not sure we r the little guys for NIT. A10 has usually been right in the NIT wheelhouse. Except during the years it gave bids to lower level reg season champs. Then it went league champs, then p6, then the rest. We’ve moved up the list. Plus I’m still uncertain how many p6 declines/opt outs we’ll see. It might be a handful.
I got a feeling this was discussed with P6 programs beforehand with understanding no more opt outs.
Nah teams act in their self interest. Look at transfer rules, NIL etc. they ask for rules then litigate or threaten to as soon as it affects them.
I don’t think a p6 firing it’s coach or needing major work in portal is going to care about NIT. And if players r going into portal it will be like bowl games they won’t want to play. The new rules r there to incentivize teams playing but I’ll be stunned if no more opt outs. I hope I’m wrong.
The incentive is the home game. I don’t see top 12 p6 teams automatically getting in as any issue. They were getting invited anyway (& even more than the 12). What I find bs is the auto home game. Those teams play barely any non conf road games as is now. Their reward is more home games in NiT! Just have to roll eyes at that. They r trying to advance p6 in NIT. It’s not about access imo. It’s about advancing. Here come play, don’t opt out & we’ll make it easier on u.
We’ll see. Maybe 1st year will be different bc it’s new. Overall tho the reg season winner rule with the low level leagues shrunk the NIT. Less available bids. Now there’s more.
