Wake Forest

[Not-A-Homer]

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.

And this is exactly why I have changed my position on Lunardi. I questioned his value in the beginning, but this 6-1 start has swung me to his side.

1) Vandy, BC, Wisc - "winnable" look good on paper wins. The teams themselves have played poorly but beating them "LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER. Lunardi knew.
2) Alabama and South Alabama - decent name teams which if you beat them look good on paper. Neither are that good this year, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Lunardi knew.
3) Slight Step down names on schedule (Charleston, ODU) fairly decent in recent past so beating them looks good on paper. Both having down years, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Again, Lunardi knew.

The greatest schedule ever crowing is, and was, a joke. But, Lunardi knew that the odds of winning these games (mostly at home) was high. The look good on paper wins have:

A. Supercharged the fan base
B. Boosted the W/L record
C. Helped build team confidence
D. Brought excitement (beaten big name teams, NCAA talk, etc.)
E. Manipulated early team ratings (Kenpom, etc.)
E. Helped Mooney and Hardt justify coaches extension

From a team perspective, they don't control who they play. Their job is to beat whomever is on the schedule. Whether this team is real or not, time will tell.

Personally, I don't care who is called quad what. I I prefer to play the best competition. BUT;

From the perspective of Lunardi being worth the investment, I think that he has hit a home run. He has accomplished EXACTLY what he was paid to do.

 

[97spiderfan]

I think Wisconsin is going to end up being a pretty good win for us. They have a good transfer (Potter from Ohio State) who will be eligible at end of semester. They are gonna win some games in the Big 10.

As for our schedule, I've come around. Look at VCU's schedule, it really isn't that different than ours. Yeah, they got LSU at home thanks to their coaching contract. But other than that we both play St. Francis, ODU, College of Charleston. Our tourney both gave us two BCS teams (VCU got two Top 25 teams and we only got 1) and then they play Witchita State which is kind of wash with our game at Bama.

Our schedule is not Top heavy with a lot of Quad 1, but also is not bottom laden with a lot of Quad 4's. I would have liked one more big name opportunity but other than that, I think we are positioned well, espicially if we go 11-2 and 10-3. Particularly, with an improved A-10 this year.

And now that I agreed with VT, I gonna go take a long hot shower.

 

[fatherspider]

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.

Very true. Vandy BC and Wisc could get hot and all be great wins or maybe not. If we get to Alabama w only one loss it is a successful OOC. You can only beat who you play. South Alabama could be a tough test. Lost to Auburn by only a point but at home.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Who else? Why does Wisconsin not count? Whoever made the schedule got us into that tournament playing Wisconsin, right? Add Auburn and that is at least three (counting Bama) quad 1 or 2 games. Last time I checked, 3 is multiple.

We were in the Legends Classic long before Lunardi. I mean, they've already announced next year's featured four teams.
I agree it is a better tournament than we've had in the past couple of years, so kudos to whoever got us in.

 

[Eight Legger]

I think it was a Gazelle Group tournament, and we are required by law and Mooney's contract with his Gazelle Group agent to be in all of those.

 

[VT4700]

We were in the Legends Classic long before Lunardi. I mean, they've already announced next year's featured four teams.
I agree it is a better tournament than we've had in the past couple of years, so kudos to whoever got us in.

I know we were, but the original comment was Lunardi or whoever made the schedule gave us winnable quad 1 and 2 games. That is accurate, and I'm not sure why there was a negative, disagreeing comment to that.

 

[fatherspider]

And this is exactly why I have changed my position on Lunardi. I questioned his value in the beginning, but this 6-1 start has swung me to his side.

1) Vandy, BC, Wisc - "winnable" look good on paper wins. The teams themselves have played poorly but beating them "LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER. Lunardi knew.
2) Alabama and South Alabama - decent name teams which if you beat them look good on paper. Neither are that good this year, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Lunardi knew.
3) Slight Step down names on schedule (Charleston, ODU) fairly decent in recent past so beating them looks good on paper. Both having down years, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Again, Lunardi knew.

The greatest schedule ever crowing is, and was, a joke. But, Lunardi knew that the odds of winning these games (mostly at home) was high. The look good on paper wins have:

A. Supercharged the fan base
B. Boosted the W/L record
C. Helped build team confidence
D. Brought excitement (beaten big name teams, NCAA talk, etc.)
E. Manipulated early team ratings (Kenpom, etc.)
E. Helped Mooney and Hardt justify coaches extension

From a team perspective, they don't control who they play. Their job is to beat whomever is on the schedule. Whether this team is real or not, time will tell.

Personally, I don't care who is called quad what. I I prefer to play the best competition. BUT;

From the perspective of Lunardi being worth the investment, I think that he has hit a home run. He has accomplished EXACTLY what he was paid to do.

I agree w most of your points and do think this may turn out to be a perfect blend of winnable, good on paper games especially if we win them. Strange how manipulating the scheduling can have this great an impact but if it works, its all worth it.

 

[fatherspider]

I know we were, but the original comment was Lunardi or whoever made the schedule gave us winnable quad 1 and 2 games. That is accurate, and I'm not sure why there was a negative, disagreeing comment to that.

The somewhat negative comments were only to state that these Quad 1 or 2 games may not turn into Quad 1 or 2 games, and that point is valid. Im not sure why the sensitivity about any post that isnt 100% agreeable.

 

[97spiderfan]

I agree w most of your points and do think this may turn out to be a perfect blend of winnable, good on paper games especially if we win them. Strange how manipulating the scheduling can have this great an impact but if it works, its all worth it.

Which is the point of developing the schedule. You wanna schedule the best teams that you can beat. I think we largely did that. Why we needed to pay Lunardi to do this for us is beyond me. Our coaching staff should be able to do this on their own. This isn't rocket science.

 

[VT4700]

And this is exactly why I have changed my position on Lunardi. I questioned his value in the beginning, but this 6-1 start has swung me to his side.

1) Vandy, BC, Wisc - "winnable" look good on paper wins. The teams themselves have played poorly but beating them "LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER. Lunardi knew.
2) Alabama and South Alabama - decent name teams which if you beat them look good on paper. Neither are that good this year, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Lunardi knew.
3) Slight Step down names on schedule (Charleston, ODU) fairly decent in recent past so beating them looks good on paper. Both having down years, but that is what makes them highly "winnable." Again, Lunardi knew.

The greatest schedule ever crowing is, and was, a joke. But, Lunardi knew that the odds of winning these games (mostly at home) was high. The look good on paper wins have:

A. Supercharged the fan base
B. Boosted the W/L record
C. Helped build team confidence
D. Brought excitement (beaten big name teams, NCAA talk, etc.)
E. Manipulated early team ratings (Kenpom, etc.)
E. Helped Mooney and Hardt justify coaches extension

From a team perspective, they don't control who they play. Their job is to beat whomever is on the schedule. Whether this team is real or not, time will tell.

Personally, I don't care who is called quad what. I I prefer to play the best competition. BUT;

From the perspective of Lunardi being worth the investment, I think that he has hit a home run. He has accomplished EXACTLY what he was paid to do.

I agree and this goes back to what I have been saying about how the schedule was set up. I think Mooney did want to play a very tough schedule after last year, but when Lunardi got involved, he asked, do you want a very hard schedule, or a very good mid major schedule with quality opponents that will give you a good chance to have a real good OOC record with good wins, and be in the at large mix if you do well IC? The answer is easy, and this is a perfect schedule for us.

I think you are correct with your A thru D comments, and those are very important. I don't think we have manipulated any ratings though (E comment). The awful RPI gets manipulated because you can have a good RPI just by playing teams, even if you lose big to them. But, our being 6-1 with some good wins is what has us looking good in the ratings. As for F (second E, but I know what you meant), we need to win to justify an extension, so I give more credit to the team and coaches for that than the schedule maker. And, still a lot of hoops left to see what happens there. But, real good post.

 

[VT4700]

The somewhat negative comments were only to state that these Quad 1 or 2 games may not turn into Quad 1 or 2 games, and that point is valid. Im not sure why the sensitivity about any post that isnt 100% agreeable.

Well, when someone responds to a poster saying Lunardi (or whoever created the schedule) got us winnable tier 1 and tier 2 games by only saying "Who are the Quad 1 and quad 2 games he got us? He had nothing to do with Auburn & Wisco.", that seems a little over the top to me. Has nothing at all to do with agreeing with me.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

It was a question, not an overtly negative comment. Maybe it's just perspective.

One could say "KenPom is not used to determine Quads. Learn how the Quad system works and try to post again." But that would be a negative, snarky comment that doesn't further the discussion.

FWIW, the first NET rankings should be released today or tomorrow.

 

[GKiller]

Well, when someone responds to a poster saying Lunardi (or whoever created the schedule) got us winnable tier 1 and tier 2 games by only saying "Who are the Quad 1 and quad 2 games he got us? He had nothing to do with Auburn & Wisco.", that seems a little over the top to me. Has nothing at all to do with agreeing with me.

That's over the top? Lol. It's true. If you go back this was all in the context of Lunardi. I speculated Wake was swapped for Vandy - which would be a mistake imo. Then Nathan said he got us multiple quad 1 and 2 games. But that's not true. I asked question b/c I figured he was confused by what are and what aren't the "Lunardi" games. By responses of others I see others confused too. While others are probably just intentionally doing so. These are the "Lunardi" games - St Francis, Vandy, Charleston, Radford, & Bama. Possibly Hampton. We'll give him Hampton too since that is rarely a H&H game and usually just a buy game. Obv he's not doing the actual scheduling, that still takes our own work. The hire of Lunardi still makes no sense when we have countless suits & coaches in the AD who should know this stuff well and big part of their job.

6 games. He had nothing do with the other games. Zip. The hire was strange, as others have said it is not rocket science. The radio show between him, Jabba and Philly Bob was even stranger, cringe worthy. I remember you VT4700 have said in past you didn't understand the Lunardi hiring either.

Look I'm all in on the Spiders, been all in. I was basically the only one expecting NCAA, everyone else was "too negative". But I fear the schedule may ultimately hold us back and that would suck. Hope I'm wrong. I think we're lacking 1 more quality top 60ish type game due to some teams being down like Wisco & ODU. Thsi is not revisionist. And b/c we're good I thought we'd win that harder game anyway. Instead we went easier route. If we get at large bid or or win A10 tourney with us already being in, I'll GLADLY admit I'm wrong.

Lastly I disagree on these look good on paper games. BC and Vandy, if they outperform expectations sure they'd look ok. But otherwise we're not getting extra credit for those, no way. They fall where they fall in the Quad tiers. Great if we did but heck I expect selection committee to look deeper than that. To me that sounds like the "eye test" which is just a term to say we're going to screw over the non P6 teams.

 

[VT4700]

Yes, I did say I did not understand why we or anyone would need to hire Lunardi. I still don't. I think a lot of us on this board could look at the past few seasons and get a feel for who might have been some good and winnable top 100 and 100-150 games to schedule. I feel the same with football coaches who for whatever reason cannot figure out clock management when it seems incredibly easy to me. I don't understand why they might need a clock management guy, but if they do, fine, just get it right. So, I feel the same with Lunardi. I don't see why we needed him, but if we are using him, let's at least get it right. And, I am thrilled with the schedule, so at least he and others (if involved) got it right.

And, I absolutely think we might get more credit for beating a major like Vandy or BC than a no name mid major that might end up around the same rating as them. If the committee only looked at quad wins, and not who you beat, than why even have a committee? We could let a computer do that for us. There will be teams that get in with less quad 1 and 2 wins than teams that got left out because the whole season will be broken down and looked at. If we end up on the bubble, wins over teams like Vandy or BC, who will likely end up with wins over other majors, could be a nice tie breaker over a team that has about the same quad 1 and 2 wins as us, but has no major or name wins.

 

[97spiderfan]

The Lunardi hiring was simply about "winning a press conference" back in the Spring. Hardt needed a bright shiny objection to try and distract the fanbase from the fact that he was not firing Mooney. And that shiny object was Lunardi. Lunardi enabled him to go on Black and Drew and essentially evade having to talk about not firing Mooney and instead drive the conversation to our schedule next year.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

As Homer's excellent post points out, this schedule is accomplishing exactly what it needs to. I would say these are more "feel good" wins for the team and fan base, but that's a quibble. They have a ton of confidence. 6-1 looks fantastic. Most of the fan base doesn't care if they are bad Power Conf teams, just that we beat a Big 10, SEC, and ACC team already. However, the Quads do matter, in the end.

Last year, DC and UD finished 2nd and 3rd in our conference. Davidson non-conf had 2 Quad 1 games (0-2, both Top 11) and 3 Quad 2 (2-1). Dayton had 4 Quad 1 (0-4, incl #1 & #13) and 2 Quad 2 (1-1). Neither was even on the bubble. It just feels like we're going to need to show up at the table with more than 3 Quad 1 & 2 games total.

Hope it works out. Just win.

 

[VT4700]

As Homer's excellent post points out, this schedule is accomplishing exactly what it needs to. I would say these are more "feel good" wins for the team and fan base, but that's a quibble. They have a ton of confidence. 6-1 looks fantastic. Most of the fan base doesn't care if they are bad Power Conf teams, just that we beat a Big 10, SEC, and ACC team already. However, the Quads do matter, in the end.

Last year, DC and UD finished 2nd and 3rd in our conference. Davidson non-conf had 2 Quad 1 games (0-2, both Top 11) and 3 Quad 2 (2-1). Dayton had 4 Quad 1 (0-4, incl #1 & #13) and 2 Quad 2 (1-1). Neither was even on the bubble. It just feels like we're going to need to show up at the table with more than 3 Quad 1 & 2 games total.

Hope it works out. Just win.

I hear you, but our conference needs to help in getting us some quad 1 and 2 wins. They don't really separate OOC and IC quad wins. If Davidson and Dayton had some IC quad 1 and 2 wins last year, they would have been on the bubble, but their chances were limited considering how poorly the conference did last year. Using kenpom, VCU finished 42, Dayton 62, and Davidson 85. Compare that to when the A-10 got 6 teams in in 2014, and teams finished 25, 35, 42, 47, 50, and 55. That is a lot of chances for quad 1 and 2 wins, and these teams got most of their good wins IC, not OOC. That is the key. OOC wins are great, and the more the better, but we need the A-10 to be strong and give us some quad 1 and 2 chances.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

They absolutely separate OOC and IC records - they print overall and non-conference all over the team sheets for a reason. I am sure the overall record is the primary consideration, but the committee has stated that non-conference scheduling is important. They even publish a separate ranking of all the teams based solely on Non-Conference!

I was using the post-tourney team sheets in my prior post, so there might be some slight differences, but here are the records based on the Selection Committee sheets:
Dayton was 3-8 (1-5 NC) in Q1 & Q2.
Davidson was 5-4 (2-3)

 

[kneepadmckinney]

First you have to get people's attention, and the only way to do that from a non power 5 conference in November and December is to win a lot of games.

We're doing that so far. We can worry about SOS in February if and when we show up on "Bubble Watch".

 

[Eight Legger]

We are going out have more top-100 games in A10 play than expected, and that should help if we win a few of them.

 

[VT4700]

They absolutely separate OOC and IC records - they print overall and non-conference all over the team sheets for a reason. I am sure the overall record is the primary consideration, but the committee has stated that non-conference scheduling is important. They even publish a separate ranking of all the teams based solely on Non-Conference!

I was using the post-tourney team sheets in my prior post, so there might be some slight differences, but here are the records based on the Selection Committee sheets:
Dayton was 3-8 (1-5 NC) in Q1 & Q2.
Davidson was 5-4 (2-3)

I always hear them say they look at the whole body of work, and when I see quads mentioned, it includes all games. They do mention OOC SOS numbers, but I have never seen them separate quad wins and losses into OOC and IC, or actual records into IC and OOC. Why would they do that? And, if they did, what are you saying is more important and why?

 

[SpiderTrap]

It will all come down to the resume and quads. I agree - looks good on paper for some of our wins - like Vandy and Boston College, but first - our resume needs to get in front of the committee before they consider us, and for that to happen - you have to follow their formula.

Quadrant one wins are those home games vs. teams RPI ranked 1-30, neutral games vs. 1-50, and away games vs. 1–75.

A Quadrant 2 win are those at Home against the RPI 31–75, neutral 51–100, and away victories over the RPI 76–135.

Considering we beat both Vandy and BC on our home floor - these will likely not fall into Quad 2 status because I don't see either of them getting into the top 75 RPI unless they come up with a couple good wins in their conference.

Wisconsin could be a quad 1 win if they play well,but likely a Quad 2 win.

Overall - right now our schedule has potential for Quad 2 win with Alabama and then maybe some Quad 1 with VCU and Dayton, and maybe Davidson in conference play.

I think as of now, and it is early, we are looking more like a team that needs to amass a lot of wins because we will not have that big Quad 1 win (Auburn was our shot) on our resume. So we may need to get to 25 wins to be in the mix/bubble and although we look pretty good right now - that is a lot of wins - especially in league play.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I always hear them say they look at the whole body of work, and when I see quads mentioned, it includes all games. They do mention OOC SOS numbers, but I have never seen them separate quad wins and losses into OOC and IC, or actual records into IC and OOC. Why would they do that? And, if they did, what are you saying is more important and why?

You've never seen them do that? Have you looked at a team sheet?
Why would they do that? Because they want to see that a team challenged itself in non-conference play (and hopefully had some success). After all, the vast majority of tournament games are non-conference.

As I said in my previous post, I am sure overall body of work is more important.

 

[fatherspider]

Which is the point of developing the schedule. You wanna schedule the best teams that you can beat. I think we largely did that. Why we needed to pay Lunardi to do this for us is beyond me. Our coaching staff should be able to do this on their own. This isn't rocket science.

I agree and this goes back to what I have been saying about how the schedule was set up. I think Mooney did want to play a very tough schedule after last year, but when Lunardi got involved, he asked, do you want a very hard schedule, or a very good mid major schedule with quality opponents that will give you a good chance to have a real good OOC record with good wins, and be in the at large mix if you do well IC? The answer is easy, and this is a perfect schedule for us.

I think you are correct with your A thru D comments, and those are very important. I don't think we have manipulated any ratings though (E comment). The awful RPI gets manipulated because you can have a good RPI just by playing teams, even if you lose big to them. But, our being 6-1 with some good wins is what has us looking good in the ratings. As for F (second E, but I know what you meant), we need to win to justify an extension, so I give more credit to the team and coaches for that than the schedule maker. And, still a lot of hoops left to see what happens there. But, real good post.

Most of what u say I agree with but Its only a perfect schedule for us if we go 11-2 ooc, finish 12-6 or better in A10 play and get real consideration for an at large. If we dont, then its far from perfect.

 

[VT4700]

You've never seen them do that? Have you looked at a team sheet?
Why would they do that? Because they want to see that a team challenged itself in non-conference play (and hopefully had some success). After all, the vast majority of tournament games are non-conference.

As I said in my previous post, I am sure overall body of work is more important.

I agree they look at SOS for OOC play, and do want teams to challenge themselves, but I just have not seen a lot of talk about a team's OOC quad wins and losses when comparing them with other teams on the bubble. SOS number and who they beat, yes, but I have not heard anyone on the committee ever break things down into OOC quad wins and IC quad wins. Same with every bubble article I have seen. They list total quad wins and losses, not OOC and then IC. If Richmond has 7 total quad 1 and 2 wins, and Davidson has 4, why would the committee care where those came from? They would look at the OOC SOS numbers as another way to judge, but why would they give more weight to Davidson having maybe 1 extra OOC quad 1/2 win than Richmond having 4 more IC 1/2 quad wins?

 

[spiderman]

we'll never know if we'd have succeeded with a harder schedule. quad 1 losses don't help much. we need to win games.

 

[VT4700]

Most of what u say I agree with but Its only a perfect schedule for us if we go 11-2 ooc, finish 12-6 or better in A10 play and get real consideration for an at large. If we dont, then its far from perfect.

I hear you, and I think you are right thinking 23-8 might be the magic record. This would give us a chance to get to 25 wins without having to win the tourney and would also keep the losses in single digits after the tourney. Not that that proves anything, and I know it will come down to quad numbers, but 24-9 or 25-9 just sounds a lot better than 23-10 or 24-10.

But, not all 23-8 records are the same. If we lose all our games to Dayton, VCU, and Davidson, and they are the top teams, and we win the rest, we could go 13-5 in the A-10 with no A-10 quad 1 or 2 wins. It would be much better to go 13-5 in the A-10 and have at least 2 wins over the top teams.

11-2 would be great in OOC play, but I don't think 10-3 would make it impossible for us. We definitely don't want to lose 3 more and go 9-4. That would be tough, but with 18 IC games and what hopefully will be a good A-10 this year, we should have a good chance at 10-3 and 13-5. I would rather do that than go 11-2 and 12-6 because the higher we finish in the A-10 the better.

Bottom line is if we get to 23 wins and don't get in, it will not be the schedule's fault that kept us out. It will be the fact that we did not beat the top A-10 teams. But, who knows? We have no idea what the bubble will look like. Some years it is uglier than other years.

 

[VT4700]

we'll never know if we'd have succeeded with a harder schedule. quad 1 losses don't help much. we need to win games.

I agree. We cant assume we would just win all these quad 1 and 2 games some want. We need to stay alive through our OOC schedule by winning enough of them, and then have our conference do well, and beat some of our top teams while having a good A-10 record. That is the formula, and it starts with an OOC schedule like the one we have.

 

[KWeaver]

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.

He did?

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

He did?

And....here....we.....go!

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Sigh. I give up. It's like talking to a wall.
Just look at a team sheet. It is what the committee members use during the selection process.
In each quadrant, you will see Overall and Non-Conference records. They highlight the non-conference games in a different color.

For the third time, overall record is more important. But non-conference is not meaningless, or they wouldn't bother breaking it down like that.

 

[KWeaver]

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.

I'm still reeling over someone saying that we have a "perfect schedule." I don't really mean this in a political sense, but we are stuck in this strange spot right now where "perfect" is used pretty flippantly. We have a "perfect" schedule. Trump made a "perfect" phone call. I don't understand why that word gets flipped around so much.

 

[VT4700]

Choppin, I think we pretty much agree. Of course, I agree that OOC is not meaningless. I have only been talking about not seeing them break down quad wins into OOC and IC, that's all. If they have, fine, I just haven't seen it. All good.

 

[invinoveritasinaquasanitas]

I'm still reeling over someone saying that we have a "perfect schedule." I don't really mean this in a political sense, but we are stuck in this strange spot right now where "perfect" is used pretty flippantly. We have a "perfect" schedule. Trump made a "perfect" phone call. I don't understand why that word gets flipped around so much.

"Perfect" is a term often used in Gaslighting. It is inappropriate and does not fit the original context or make sense until complete belief and indoctrination upon the intended audience have been obtained by the Gaslighter.
Not making a political statement here, just passing on the purpose, connotation, and psychological implication of the use of the word in such a context. Gaslighting is used to obtain destabilization, disorientation, and delegitimization in the target.

 

[Spider2020]

The schedule is good enough if we just keep winning, end of story

 

[wr70beh]

Sigh. I give up. It's like talking to a wall.
Just look at a team sheet. It is what the committee members use during the selection process.
In each quadrant, you will see Overall and Non-Conference records. They highlight the non-conference games in a different color.

For the third time, overall record is more important. But non-conference is not meaningless, or they wouldn't bother breaking it down like that.

Just ignore him and his buddy. Without their fluff and puff that looks an awful lot like the PR firm that the AD uses, the board is more realistic.

 

[97spiderfan]

Just ignore him and his buddy. Without their fluff and puff that looks an awful lot like the PR firm that the AD uses, the board is more realistic.

The board was doing just fine when VT took a few days off. And then he is back arguing with everyone and sometimes I think himself. He is hard not to respond to because he is so hypersensitive and needlessly argumentative.

 

[fatherspider]

I hear you, and I think you are right thinking 23-8 might be the magic record. This would give us a chance to get to 25 wins without having to win the tourney and would also keep the losses in single digits after the tourney. Not that that proves anything, and I know it will come down to quad numbers, but 24-9 or 25-9 just sounds a lot better than 23-10 or 24-10.

But, not all 23-8 records are the same. If we lose all our games to Dayton, VCU, and Davidson, and they are the top teams, and we win the rest, we could go 13-5 in the A-10 with no A-10 quad 1 or 2 wins. It would be much better to go 13-5 in the A-10 and have at least 2 wins over the top teams.

11-2 would be great in OOC play, but I don't think 10-3 would make it impossible for us. We definitely don't want to lose 3 more and go 9-4. That would be tough, but with 18 IC games and what hopefully will be a good A-10 this year, we should have a good chance at 10-3 and 13-5. I would rather do that than go 11-2 and 12-6 because the higher we finish in the A-10 the better.

Bottom line is if we get to 23 wins and don't get in, it will not be the schedule's fault that kept us out. It will be the fact that we did not beat the top A-10 teams. But, who knows? We have no idea what the bubble will look like. Some years it is uglier than other years.

Yes, we could have a very impressive looking record but not have beaten the right teams and possibly lost to 1 or 2 bad ones, and we will not get too much at large consideration. I do think that with Gilyard and Francis playing more fearless than anyone we have had in the past few years, I don't see us losing to any very bad teams... hopefully, anyway.

 

[GKiller]

we'll never know if we'd have succeeded with a harder schedule. quad 1 losses don't help much. we need to win games.

I agree. We cant assume we would just win all these quad 1 and 2 games some want. We need to stay alive through our OOC schedule by winning enough of them, and then have our conference do well, and beat some of our top teams while having a good A-10 record. That is the formula, and it starts with an OOC schedule like the one we have.

we'll certainly know if the softer schedule didn't work tho. sure you gotta win games but weird that Dayton got so many props for a loss to KU.

VT dont be so negative on the team. I expected to win a harder game if we had it b/c we're good. Not scheduling it just for the SOS, we'd go to win. And "all these" extra quad 1/2 games, no how bout just 1. Look I just want some more margin. We're dealing with slim margins with at larges outside P6. I'm not sold on A10 either, yes it's better. But Davidson and Bonny have crapped the bed. You do have the Goo Moos and Duq who have made up for it to some degree.

Sure hope the BC and Vandy help us as "name" teams. The committee should not value them any more than a similarly ranked non P6 team, say a Murray St or Belmont or Hofstra. Just throwing out names that may or may not end up similar. If the committee does that I don't agree b/c I feel overall it's just a way to help the power teams, but hopefully works in our favor in this case.

Anyway there's a LONG way to go but I'm glad to have the discussion b/c it means we've done a lot right to date.

 

[RichmondNative]

It is interesting to me that all the focus is on an at-large bid. My personal opinion is that the Spiders have a better chance of getting the auto bid. I am not saying that the Spiders will win the A-10 tournament, just that the chances of that happening are better.

I am happy the Spiders are 6-1, since it is much more fun watching the Spiders win in Robins, but I can't believe the hype train. The OOC schedule may be "perfect" for this year's team, but definitely not one that guarantees anything. The key is winning and oh by the way the Spiders are going to have to do a bunch of that in conference too. The increase in possible bids for the A10 is because a significant number of teams are playing better. The best news for the Spiders may be that Davidson is not faring well in its OOC play.