What Have You Done For The A10 Lately? - Page 9 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

UMass87 · 06-04-2012, 01:16 PM

The ACC is a power conference due both to its BCS status and, more importantly, to the fact that it has UNC and Duke. It can afford to have teams that suck. If the A10 aspires to be a premier basketball conference, which it clearly does, it has to do more. The A10 has clearly been a better basketball conference than the Pac-10 over the last couple of years and yet nobody who matters (ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc.) will ever consider the A10 better until it consistently gets five or more bids EVERY year. That simply will not happen until there are far fewer 20-game losers and far more 20 game winners. All the complaints about UMass' weak OOC schedule in 2011-2012 seem to miss this very important point. Until UMass (or any other A10 team) regularly makes the NCAA tournament it should be scheduling for a minimum of 10 OOC wins. That means a weak OOC schedule where a win in most contests should be expected. The teams, like Temple and Xavier, that are marquee or have a string of NCAA appearances should be scheduling for prestige. If they could count on most of their conference mates winning 10+ games OOC then they will not suffer in the seasons when they only win 7 or 8 of their OOC games (with the losses coming to top 50 teams). The A10 will be fighting harder and harder for relevance in the coming years as the move towards four super conferences continues.

ExplorerSteve · 06-04-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMass87

The ACC is a power conference due both to its BCS status and, more importantly, to the fact that it has UNC and Duke. It can afford to have teams that suck. If the A10 aspires to be a premier basketball conference, which it clearly does, it has to do more. The A10 has clearly been a better basketball conference than the Pac-10 over the last couple of years and yet nobody who matters (ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc.) will ever consider the A10 better until it consistently gets five or more bids EVERY year. That simply will not happen until there are far fewer 20-game losers and far more 20 game winners. All the complaints about UMass' weak OOC schedule in 2011-2012 seem to miss this very important point. Until UMass (or any other A10 team) regularly makes the NCAA tournament it should be scheduling for a minimum of 10 OOC wins. That means a weak OOC schedule where a win in most contests should be expected. The teams, like Temple and Xavier, that are marquee or have a string of NCAA appearances should be scheduling for prestige. If they could count on most of their conference mates winning 10+ games OOC then they will not suffer in the seasons when they only win 7 or 8 of their OOC games (with the losses coming to top 50 teams). The A10 will be fighting harder and harder for relevance in the coming years as the move towards four super conferences continues.

My biggest fear is that the smaller, especially private schools, will be tossed into Division 1AA like they did with football in order to reduce those schools to just over 100 competing for a football championship.

xudash · 06-04-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExplorerSteve

My biggest fear is that the smaller, especially private schools, will be tossed into Division 1AA like they did with football in order to reduce those schools to just over 100 competing for a football championship.

This is basketball, not football.

There is NOTHING like the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Nothing. It's primary appeal comes from its inclusiveness and from something as basic and lasting as time: David wanting to score more points than Goliath. Casual fans get involved if for no other reason than to get swept up into the brackets frenzy, early match-ups (especially) and win/advance or lose/done nature of the tournament.

The BCS schools are solving for football, not basketball. Were they to go after basketball, then the anti-trust suits would definitely fly. The economics of the tournament would be gutted, because first round games between the likes of South Carolina v. Northwestern would get passed over in favor of that 70's looking guy who teaches painting on PBS.

Blue Blobster · 06-04-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMass87

I don't think anyone disagrees that advancement in the NCAA tournament is the principal means by which a team garners national appeal. That is why Xavier and Temple have such marquee value for the league. What many fail to understand, though, is that other teams - Dayton in particular - are providing a very valuable service to the other members of the conference (including Xavier and Temple) by consistently winning 20+ games. The teams that win 20+ games improve the RPI of all of their conference mates which, in turn, increases the potential number of at-large bids. Conversely, losing 20+ games is very damaging to conference mates. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for many to grasp.

I agree with this. As much as we bash each others programs, We are glad when others in our conference do well. It means that in the end more of us get into the NCAA tournament.

Of course some fans are always gonna wish gloom and doom towards their rivals but I agree that most fans want to see the conference as a whole have a bunch of teams managing 20 some wins

paulxu · 06-04-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMass87

Shit, as good as Xavier has been, they have never had an outstanding OOC of the level of a Temple or UMass in the 90's (which is why their seeds are consistently lower than Xavier fans want). Xavier needs Dayton and every other A10 20-game winner it can get.

At the beginning of last season our OOC SOS was ranked #2 in the country behind Long Beach State. We definitely need to get a better OOC schedule.

bprichard · 06-04-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Blobster

I agree with this. As much as we bash each others programs, We are glad when others in our conference do well. It means that in the end more of us get into the NCAA tournament.

Of course some fans are always gonna wish gloom and doom towards their rivals but I agree that most fans want to see the conference as a whole have a bunch of teams managing 20 some wins

I just can't get behind those wishing ill on their rivals. What's the point of beating your rival if they're already down?

MudFlap · 06-05-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulxu

At the beginning of last season our OOC SOS was ranked #2 in the country behind Long Beach State. We definitely need to get a better OOC schedule.

87 needs to do a quick review. We played a monster OOC sched. and as an X fan, I can't say I've ever been unhappy with a seed.

**xu95** · 06-05-2012, 09:41 AM

Our schedule was better on paper than it ended up being. However, Xavier schedules with the plans of it being an awesome schedule. Sometimes our opponents don't help out.

Knobby · 06-05-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UMass87

The ACC is a power conference due both to its BCS status and, more importantly, to the fact that it has UNC and Duke. It can afford to have teams that suck. If the A10 aspires to be a premier basketball conference, which it clearly does, it has to do more. The A10 has clearly been a better basketball conference than the Pac-10 over the last couple of years and yet nobody who matters (ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc.) will ever consider the A10 better until it consistently gets five or more bids EVERY year. That simply will not happen until there are far fewer 20-game losers and far more 20 game winners. All the complaints about UMass' weak OOC schedule in 2011-2012 seem to miss this very important point. Until UMass (or any other A10 team) regularly makes the NCAA tournament it should be scheduling for a minimum of 10 OOC wins. That means a weak OOC schedule where a win in most contests should be expected. The teams, like Temple and Xavier, that are marquee or have a string of NCAA appearances should be scheduling for prestige. If they could count on most of their conference mates winning 10+ games OOC then they will not suffer in the seasons when they only win 7 or 8 of their OOC games (with the losses coming to top 50 teams). The A10 will be fighting harder and harder for relevance in the coming years as the move towards four super conferences continues.

Unless the crappy A-10 teams have an even weaker schedule it is almost mathematically impossible for the confernce to have more 20 game winners and less 20 game losers... You want 5 a-10 teams to get into the tourney every year, you have to sacrafice the confernece and OOC records of the bottom 4 or 5 teams - if they are getting beaten that badly in conference, they are going to lose a lot of OOC games as well unless they are loaded with games from sub-200 ranked teams - which (whattayaknow) means a lower SOS/RPI etc..... YOU HAVE TO HAVE TEAMS THAT SUCK EVERY YEAR!

You are still missing the bigger picture here - it is not about having bad teams, IT IS ABOUT THE SAME TEAMS BEING BAD YEAR AFTER YEAR - this is the real answer to your original thread question - not scheduling and some of the other extraneous crap that has been flying around here! Some teams have not done ANYTHING as a member of this conference - NOTHING. Formulas and points systems are not telling us something we don't already know about the obvious 5 or so teams that have done nothing for this conference - unless you use Explorere Steve's assessment which gives a jillion points for somehting that happend 60+ years ago....

I actually agree with almost every point you are trying to make, but there is no magic scheduling potion that will assure 5 NCAA teams - either you have teams good enough or you don't.

jpschmack · 06-05-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knobby

You want 5 a-10 teams to get into the tourney every year, you have to sacrafice the confernece and OOC records of the bottom 4 or 5 teams - if they are getting beaten that badly in conference, they are going to lose a lot of OOC games as well unless they are loaded with games from sub-200 ranked teams - which (whattayaknow) means a lower SOS/RPI etc..... YOU HAVE TO HAVE TEAMS THAT SUCK EVERY YEAR!

In conference, yes. I'm perfectly okay with four cellar dwellers always being at the bottom. But the OOC stuff you said is backwards. The bottom teams playing a WEAK OOC helps the conference immensely. It's this simple:

Last Place (3-13) OOC SOS 140, 5-25 overall - Hurts when 5-25 counts on each of our SOS once and OppSOS 15 times
Last Place (3-13) OOC SOS 346, 14-16 overall - Doesn't hurt when 14-16 counts on each of our SOS once and OppSOS 15 times

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knobby

You are still missing the bigger picture here - it is not about having bad teams, IT IS ABOUT THE SAME TEAMS BEING BAD YEAR AFTER YEAR - this is the real answer to your original thread question - not scheduling and some of the other extraneous crap that has been flying around here! Some teams have not done ANYTHING as a member of this conference - NOTHING. Formulas and points systems are not telling us something we don't already know about the obvious 5 or so teams that have done nothing for this conference

If they are 14-16 and not 5-25, they are putting W's in OUR win columns and not hurting our RPIs. That's okay by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knobby

I actually agree with almost every point you are trying to make, but there is no magic scheduling potion that will assure 5 NCAA teams - either you have teams good enough or you don't.

"Assure" no, but I can make a scheduling position that would result in pretty darn close to it.

Knobby · 06-06-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpschmack

"Assure" no, but I can make a scheduling position that would result in pretty darn close to it.

Yes Mr. Wizard. Because everyone in the country is waiting for you to make sure the A-10 gets the perfect schedules for post season play and everyone you need to make this schedule is willing to play our teams.... and why are you not the AD for a college yet?

ExplorerSteve · 06-06-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpschmack

In conference, yes. I'm perfectly okay with four cellar dwellers always being at the bottom. But the OOC stuff you said is backwards. The bottom teams playing a WEAK OOC helps the conference immensely. It's this simple:

Last Place (3-13) OOC SOS 140, 5-25 overall - Hurts when 5-25 counts on each of our SOS once and OppSOS 15 times
Last Place (3-13) OOC SOS 346, 14-16 overall - Doesn't hurt when 14-16 counts on each of our SOS once and OppSOS 15 times

If they are 14-16 and not 5-25, they are putting W's in OUR win columns and not hurting our RPIs. That's okay by me.

"Assure" no, but I can make a scheduling position that would result in pretty darn close to it.

Please stop responding to him, he adds no cred to this board.

stophorseabuse · 06-06-2012, 06:56 PM

Jp making a lot of sense.we need our last place teams winning 8 games ooc, not 4. Massive difference in the end. RPI game.

UMass87 · 06-06-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExplorerSteve

Please stop responding to him, he adds no cred to this board.

That is certainly the funniest thing I have read all day.

paulxu · 06-06-2012, 07:35 PM

Here's some interesting reading that will please the UMass fans.
Writer a little weak since he can't spell Semaj, and made a mistake by leaving out the word "mistake" when writing about X.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/06/...e-atlantic-10/

06-04-2012, 01:16 PM	#121 (permalink)
UMass87 Star Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,727 Rep Power: 226644	Re: What Have You Done For The A10 Lately? The ACC is a power conference due both to its BCS status and, more importantly, to the fact that it has UNC and Duke. It can afford to have teams that suck. If the A10 aspires to be a premier basketball conference, which it clearly does, it has to do more. The A10 has clearly been a better basketball conference than the Pac-10 over the last couple of years and yet nobody who matters (ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc.) will ever consider the A10 better until it consistently gets five or more bids EVERY year. That simply will not happen until there are far fewer 20-game losers and far more 20 game winners. All the complaints about UMass' weak OOC schedule in 2011-2012 seem to miss this very important point. Until UMass (or any other A10 team) regularly makes the NCAA tournament it should be scheduling for a minimum of 10 OOC wins. That means a weak OOC schedule where a win in most contests should be expected. The teams, like Temple and Xavier, that are marquee or have a string of NCAA appearances should be scheduling for prestige. If they could count on most of their conference mates winning 10+ games OOC then they will not suffer in the seasons when they only win 7 or 8 of their OOC games (with the losses coming to top 50 teams). The A10 will be fighting harder and harder for relevance in the coming years as the move towards four super conferences continues.

06-05-2012, 09:41 AM	#128 (permalink)
xu95 Community Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cincinnati Age: 40 Posts: 3,576 Rep Power: 332174	Re: What Have You Done For The A10 Lately? Our schedule was better on paper than it ended up being. However, Xavier schedules with the plans of it being an awesome schedule. Sometimes our opponents don't help out.

06-06-2012, 06:56 PM	#133 (permalink)
stophorseabuse Veteran Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Valdosta, GA (Title town) Age: 33 Posts: 2,076 Rep Power: 142982	Re: What Have You Done For The A10 Lately? Jp making a lot of sense.we need our last place teams winning 8 games ooc, not 4. Massive difference in the end. RPI game.

06-06-2012, 07:35 PM	#135 (permalink)
paulxu Veteran Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,361 Rep Power: 309022	Re: What Have You Done For The A10 Lately? Here's some interesting reading that will please the UMass fans. Writer a little weak since he can't spell Semaj, and made a mistake by leaving out the word "mistake" when writing about X. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/06/...e-atlantic-10/ __________________ *...he went up late, and I was already up there.*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)