I may of missed it, but any reason why Wake wasnt on the schedule for this season? Think is only the 2nd time since the early 90s we didnt play them and was wondering if this is just a one year hiatus or the contract isnt going to be renewed?
Wake Forest
- Thread starter Ferrum Spider
- Start date
https://godeacs.com/news/2018/11/30/mens-basketball-gameday-central-richmond.aspx
Do we have a list of games anywhere? I don’t think football lists all the games against one opponent in one place like football.
We discussed this earlier there have been more misses than I remember but not in the last 20 years.
I still think this was originally tied to a Robins donation to their school.
Do we have a list of games anywhere? I don’t think football lists all the games against one opponent in one place like football.
We discussed this earlier there have been more misses than I remember but not in the last 20 years.
I still think this was originally tied to a Robins donation to their school.
Maybe they will hire Mooney away, and we can resume the series.
We have played them 43 times, which ties them with UVA for 16th most frequent opponent.
We did not play them in '07-'08; that was the only other Mooney year we haven't faced them.
Beilein's teams in '98-'99 and '99-'00 did not face them, either.
We have played them 43 times, which ties them with UVA for 16th most frequent opponent.
We did not play them in '07-'08; that was the only other Mooney year we haven't faced them.
Beilein's teams in '98-'99 and '99-'00 did not face them, either.
I remember last year wake saying they had missed either 12 or 17 which seemed more than I remember. But can’t figure out how to search here anymore.
Yes, I saw that and the record total.
But I meant each year individually without having to search each year. Like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Cup
Um, just click on the number "43" in the G column.
I don't think the basketball rivalry with WF is ever going to garner its own Wikipedia page.
Mooney said recently he expected Wake back in future. As pointed out there have a been a few other years not on schedule but not many.
Would not surprise me if this was a Lunardi thing. We swapped Wake for Vandy. Great. If we're remotely close that dwarf better put us in his early bracketology, he owes us after the scheduling fiasco.
I think our schedule has been pretty good actually. We’re playing 5 power 5 teams, as well as some decent non-power 5 teams (Radford, south Alabama, ODU). Plus, most of those “good” games are winnable.
Lunardi didn’t get us any top25 matchups, but he did (or whoever created the schedule) get us winnable tier 1 and tier 2 games. I think that’s what you want as a non-power 5 team going for an at large bid.
Who are the Quad 1 and quad 2 games he got us? He had nothing to do with Auburn & Wisco.
So you are saying there is no Chris Paul or Tim Duncan there? Next I’ll hear there is no Cremins at GA Tech...
Last edited:
Don't see em here. Maybe on another thread or deleted by admins.
At Wake vs home to Vandy is pretty solid difference and I think the numbers will continue to bear that out at end of year.
@ Alabama will probably be quad 1. They are 80 with kenpom now, and will likely move up during SEC play. Last year, they had a losing SEC record, went 18-16 overall and finished 64. They are an ideal opponent.
Too early to tell where the other teams will end up, but overall, this is a great schedule for us. Home games need to be top 75 to be quad 2, so that is tough for mid majors to get OOC, but our OOC games combined with our IC games will give us more than enough quad 1 and 2 games overall. And, even if Vandy and BC end up quad 3, they are good, solid wins, and it is always noticeable when a mid major beats a major.
He said winnable games (plural). I agree Alabama will probably be a Quad 1 or Quad 2 game, and it is winnable. Who else?
ODU, maybe - but they were probably already on our schedule - we've played them every year that Mooney's been here. Plus, they just finished dead last in their 8-team tourney, so that's not going to help their rating.
It may be "tough" for mid-majors to get Quad 1 home games OOC, but a few of our conference peers did so, and they weren't touting the "best OOC schedule in the A-10." That's not even counting LaSalle and St. Joe's automatic games with Temple and Villanova.
ODU, maybe - but they were probably already on our schedule - we've played them every year that Mooney's been here. Plus, they just finished dead last in their 8-team tourney, so that's not going to help their rating.
It may be "tough" for mid-majors to get Quad 1 home games OOC, but a few of our conference peers did so, and they weren't touting the "best OOC schedule in the A-10." That's not even counting LaSalle and St. Joe's automatic games with Temple and Villanova.
We are 6-1 with 3 wins over power 6 teams, and still have a likely quad 1 power team to play. We have a good ranking with kenpom. Looks like a perfect OOC schedule so far and we still have good opponents in addition to Bama remaining. Why continue to complain? Geez, it is perfectly acceptable to admit you might have been wrong about the schedule instead of continuing to act like there is something wrong with it when there is not.
But, if you say that, you also need to look at next year, when it will be better to go to Vandy than play Wake at home. Bottom line is I don't see the Vandy win hurting us in any way.
Why cant someone say that they believe the schedule will turn out to be a bust? The P5 wins are likely from some of the worst p5 teams. BC Vandy and Wisc dont seem to be very good. Out of the 3 Wisc will likely have the best ranking at years end because they are so tough at home. Their loss to NMState shows they are not very good though. We have some tough games that are must wins because they r home... South Alabama and Charleston. Losses there will possibly be Tier 4 but def Tier 3. That leaves us w Alabama which hasnt been very good (loss to Penn lol) so far but since its on the road could be a tier 2 game. If you consider a schedule “good” because of the number of winnable games then I guess its good because there arent many “tough” opponents on it.
I know the numbers and I stick w what I said. Home losses to the teams I mentioned would be quad 3 or 4 imo. Neither team will be top 75 by years end. Wisc may be a quad 2 but certainly not definite. Alabama is a chance to get a good win but likely not Quad 1 since they already have some bad losses. ODU is 3-5 so far so know way that would be a Quad 1 win. So im a bit confused by your statement. In our OOC where do you see quad 1 and 2 games?
You said we would have wins over some of the worst P5 teams. Who cares? They will still be good wins. Wisconsin is actually 57 in kenpom right now, which is just outside of quad 1. BC and Vandy are good wins, and their ranking numbers will only improve when they get into their conference play. Even if quad 3, not all quad 3s are equal, and they will not be looked at negatively by the committee. The committee looks at more than just the numbers, and they do care who you beat. You can disagree if you want, but a mid major beating a major is considered a good win.
You said South Alabama and Charleston could be quad 4. Well, I guess they could, but I doubt it. Then, you said Bama could be quad 2, as if that is the best they could do, and then just said likely not 1 because they have bad losses, but they were inside the top 75 last year at 18-16, with some bad losses. So, it just seemed to me you were looking at worst case scenario for all these teams, and I could not tell by some of your comments if you understood the quad system. If you do, great. We can just disagree on how we view our opponents. No worries.
You said South Alabama and Charleston could be quad 4. Well, I guess they could, but I doubt it. Then, you said Bama could be quad 2, as if that is the best they could do, and then just said likely not 1 because they have bad losses, but they were inside the top 75 last year at 18-16, with some bad losses. So, it just seemed to me you were looking at worst case scenario for all these teams, and I could not tell by some of your comments if you understood the quad system. If you do, great. We can just disagree on how we view our opponents. No worries.
I believe that last year UVa played nearly every state D1 school except for Richmond. Even Liberty and Mason. We're 60 miles away, we used to play a lot. Has a Mooney team ever played them other than scrimmage? I really am surprised by this..
Regarding the quads - it might be fun to speculate but the truth is we don't know what quad most teams will end up at this point, so it's probably best to not get too worked up over it on either side. All it would take is a stinker or two from us and all at large talk ends anyway.
The best thing we can do right now is get to the Alabama game with still just one loss. The next four games are games we should win and will likely be favored in but I expect there to be some close battles.
The best thing we can do right now is get to the Alabama game with still just one loss. The next four games are games we should win and will likely be favored in but I expect there to be some close battles.
Good point Rick, not sure what happened here? Another blatant error on the AD. Maybe Jabba and Lunardi can fix it?
That's true next year. Except I know what the rest of the schedule is this year. Next year there is a lot of unknown. I assume rest of schedule next year will be hard enough but it might be giving our AD & his man crush Lunardi too much credit.
So I am factoring next year but rest of schedule should supplement it well. Vandy game is good to have but every game factors into what else you do with schedule. We also took that as a home game at Vandy request, we switched. Well that's ok but again how does that work with rest of schedule. I hope you're right about this year schedule, I don't think it's difficult enough. If we are in the at large mix like we absolutely should be, we'll see.
Sure would have been nice to have that NCAA team on the schedule like Philly Bob promised.
Who's complaining? Gee whiz. A poster said Lunardi (or "whoever created the schedule") got us multiple winnable Quad 1 and 2 games. Someone else asked which games. You jumped in with @Alabama, instead of letting the original poster respond. The question remains unanswered. Who else?
I've admitted multiple times that Alabama is a good get and that our schedule is improved over last year. Good golly.
I am very glad we are 6-1. 6-1 was expected based on our schedule so far - although "expected" was L vs Wisconsin, W vs UNM. So we have exceeded expectations in that we have a better win and a better loss than projections. Based on the actual opponents, we were "expected" to win 5. Playing Auburn instead of New Mexico is a plus. Gee willikers!
I like where we're at. It was great to be back in the RC; this team is fun to watch. Gosh. It was a nice scheduling coup avoiding any road games in November.
Geez. Snow's gonna flake.
Why would they schedule us based on our performance of the last few years? Way too much of a risk on their end for a bad loss. We get back to winning regularly and with better computer #s and we become more attractive.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Womens - Oklahoma State @Daytona Beach Classic 11/30 Saturday - 545pm- Latest: Section 204and5
-
-
