Proposed A10 Thread for "Realists"

[hawkaddict]

Originally Posted by BrownIndians85

However, if a bloc of them left (you might have been getting at this) a la the WAC split some years back, it would be possible. They'd no longer have the A-10 name.

Out of curiosity who would you keep? I think you'd be making a mistake to not include Duquesne or Bona. Look what Bona has demonstrated they can do when they don't have a**holes ruining a program. I think LaSalle's got potential, but honestly taking just results - I'd leave Fordham and LaSalle behind. And I like both schools - it would be a "business decision".

This is exactly what I'm getting at. This is a watershed moment for the league. Everyone needs to take an honest look in the mirror and decide whether they will dedicate the resources to be a part going forward, or if they should seek their level elsewhere. If some are truly not willing to commit and not willing to leave, then maybe the A10 has run its course.

As far as who I would or would not choose to keep. I would base that solely on standards put in place. Anyone that can meet those standards and agrees to with binding penalties and rewards are welcome. Such criteria would be:
-total budget, and its allocation
-arena, some form of standards that are reasonable but not a gimme
-scheduling, are there buy games, are there 2 for 1s with upper echelon schools, etc...
These are objective ways to measure commitment. We all won't always be winners, but at least we all agree to be all we can be.

And yes, I'm purposely not naming schools because I think that is counterproductive and will just cause unnecessary agruments.

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by BrownIndians85

However, if a bloc of them left (you might have been getting at this) a la the WAC split some years back, it would be possible. They'd no longer have the A-10 name.

Out of curiosity who would you keep? I think you'd be making a mistake to not include Duquesne or Bona. Look what Bona has demonstrated they can do when they don't have a**holes ruining a program. I think LaSalle's got potential, but honestly taking just results - I'd leave Fordham and LaSalle behind. And I like both schools - it would be a "business decision".

So, we're assuming the BE7 takes Xavier, Butler and Saint Louis, leaving the Atlantic 10 with 11 teams.
Ann seven of these schools are doing the exact same thing: "breaking away" adding 3-5 members of the best of the rest to form a 10 or 12-team league of their own? I'd also assume the loss of Butler and SLU means the MVC and WCC are not in play.

Out of everyone else, looking at "NCAA bids" only is pretty misleading. Are teams like Siena, Iona, Robert Morris, etc going to the dance more than Duquesne, LaSalle and Fordham because they are better at basketball than those schools, or simply because they have a much easier path through the MAAC and NEC?

Who's capable of getting an at-large bid to the dance? Dayton, St. Joe's, UMass, URI, GW, Richmond, Bona all have. The remaining A-10 teams have 21 NCAA at-large bids in the last 20 years. Here's a list of everyone else we could add who have gotten an at-large since 1995:

George Mason (twice), Iona (2012). That is all.
George Mason is going to get an A-10 invite the second someone else leaves. That's a given.

Let's compare Iona and La Salle over the last six seasons:
Iona: 94 wins
La Salle: 90 wins
Iona: 165 average SOS
La Salle: 113 average SOS
Iona: 2-15 vs top 50 RPI teams
La Salle is 4-31 vs top 50 RPI teams

Last season:
Iona was 0-1 vs the Top 50 of the RPI last year; La Salle 1-4
Iona was 5-2 vs the Top 100 of the RPI last year, La Salle, 6-8
Iona was 5-2 (Manhattan, Fairfield) vs teams 101-200 of the RPI last year, La Salle 8-3 (Villanova, Delaware, Richmond)
Iona was 14-1 vs 200+ of the RPI last year, La Salle 7-1

The only difference I see is that La Salle plays better teams in the A-10 than Iona plays in the MAAC.

Do we really need to split off, lose the A-10 name, create a bunch of headlines that make us look ridiculous simply to get rid of Fordham and replace them with a marginal upgrade like Iona, Hofstra or Stony Brook? If Fordham simply won more OOC games and helped the conference RPI while finishing at the bottom, wouldn't the rest of us be okay with that?

[bprichard]

With a weakened A10, getting an at large bid becomes harder, though. In the this season's A10, teams have a chance to get quality wins over X, Butler, VCU, and Temple. Without those quality wins, teams can't get many good wins in the conference. So while it's to the league's interest to schedule for wins in the OOC, realistically, teams are going to have to take more chances in the OOC if they want to build a quality resume, since conference wins are on average less valuable.

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

We could always use Fordham, GW and Richmond as the core and go full brainiac* league.


*Braniacs with rich parents.

[res]

Originally Posted by Bona Wolf for Pope

We could always use Fordham, GW and Richmond as the core and go full brainiac* league.


*Braniacs with rich parents.

You're giving Fordham and GW too much credit, and simultaneously showing your own insecurities.

[Muddy Waters]

The Bonnies fans, individually and collectively, are showing a lot of insecurities these days.

I can't say I blame them.

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

Originally Posted by res

You're giving Fordham and GW too much credit, and simultaneously showing your own insecurities.

I'm keeping SBU in the conference. I just wanted Fordham to get some love, because the theme of every single post I've read is "F FU"

[res]

No, the insecurities comment was related to your asterisk. I was a big proponent of bringing Fordham in. I believed that there was a real possibility of the them cracking a significant portion of the NY market. Unfortunately, the commitment was never there, or at least never competently delivered.

As to insecurities, my good friend, Muddy, there's no poster on this board who presents theirs more transparently than do you.

[Deleo77]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

So, we're assuming the BE7 takes Xavier, Butler and Saint Louis, leaving the Atlantic 10 with 11 teams.
Ann seven of these schools are doing the exact same thing: "breaking away" adding 3-5 members of the best of the rest to form a 10 or 12-team league of their own? I'd also assume the loss of Butler and SLU means the MVC and WCC are not in play.

Out of everyone else, looking at "NCAA bids" only is pretty misleading. Are teams like Siena, Iona, Robert Morris, etc going to the dance more than Duquesne, LaSalle and Fordham because they are better at basketball than those schools, or simply because they have a much easier path through the MAAC and NEC?

Who's capable of getting an at-large bid to the dance? Dayton, St. Joe's, UMass, URI, GW, Richmond, Bona all have. The remaining A-10 teams have 21 NCAA at-large bids in the last 20 years. Here's a list of everyone else we could add who have gotten an at-large since 1995:

George Mason (twice), Iona (2012). That is all.
George Mason is going to get an A-10 invite the second someone else leaves. That's a given.

Let's compare Iona and La Salle over the last six seasons:
Iona: 94 wins
La Salle: 90 wins
Iona: 165 average SOS
La Salle: 113 average SOS
Iona: 2-15 vs top 50 RPI teams
La Salle is 4-31 vs top 50 RPI teams

Last season:
Iona was 0-1 vs the Top 50 of the RPI last year; La Salle 1-4
Iona was 5-2 vs the Top 100 of the RPI last year, La Salle, 6-8
Iona was 5-2 (Manhattan, Fairfield) vs teams 101-200 of the RPI last year, La Salle 8-3 (Villanova, Delaware, Richmond)
Iona was 14-1 vs 200+ of the RPI last year, La Salle 7-1

The only difference I see is that La Salle plays better teams in the A-10 than Iona plays in the MAAC.

Do we really need to split off, lose the A-10 name, create a bunch of headlines that make us look ridiculous simply to get rid of Fordham and replace them with a marginal upgrade like Iona, Hofstra or Stony Brook? If Fordham simply won more OOC games and helped the conference RPI while finishing at the bottom, wouldn't the rest of us be okay with that?

I couldn't see a group of schools breaking away from the A10 to play with any of these schools above - Iona, Stony Brook? That doesn't seem worth it. The only crazy idea I can come up for doing it is if UConn, Cinci, Memphis and Temple want to play in a football conference that spans the whole country but they want to play in a regional league for all other sports. This idea has been mentioned and their first choice would probably be to go join back with the Catholic schools that just left the conference. The Newark paper reported this just today I think.

Now let's say that doesn't work for a variety of reasons, and the ACC stays more or less in tact for a while. What would these 4 schools do then, and what if some A10 schools approached them to create a new 10-12 school basketball focused conference? If Dayton or SLU gets left out, they might want to join in on this as well. I really give this a 5% chance of happening but I can't remember if this is the delusional or realist thread. So a new conference would be something along the lines of: Memphis, Richmond, Temple, UMass, GW, VCU, Dayton (or SLU), Cinci, UConn, St. Joe's, and maybe another team or two. As has been said above, it would take a lot of work to make this happen and I am not sure the motivation is really there.

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by bprichard

With a weakened A10, getting an at large bid becomes harder, though. In the this season's A10, teams have a chance to get quality wins over X, Butler, VCU, and Temple. Without those quality wins, teams can't get many good wins in the conference. So while it's to the league's interest to schedule for wins in the OOC, realistically, teams are going to have to take more chances in the OOC if they want to build a quality resume, since conference wins are on average less valuable.

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS NO!

What makes Xavier, Butler, VCU and Temple quality wins?

It's NOT the name on the front of the jersey, otherwise La Salle, Bonaventure, Jacksonville, Seattle, San Francisco and all the other teams who made a Final Four 40+ years ago would still be "quality wins."

They're quality wins becuase they WIN THEIR OOC GAMES. Period. That's it.

Was Saint Louis a quality win last season? (RPI of #31. NCAA at-large.) Who'd they beat OOC to make them a quality win? They played the #189 OOC SOS and didn't beat a single Top 70 team OOC. They were 11-2 OOC. So when four A-10 teams beat them, those were quality wins for Xavier and Temple.


We are guaranteed to go .500 in conference, no different than before. Our first place team will be 13-3 or 12-4. Our second place team will be 12-4 or 11-5. Our third-place team will be 11-5 or 10-6, and our fourth place team will be 11-5, 10-6 or 9-7. And those four teams will play each other. And if those four teams win a lot of OOC games, they will all count as quality wins against each other.

What you do NOT want to do is say "We lost Xavier, we lost Temple, we lost Butler... we better schedule tougher OOC!" and go 6-6 in those tough games and end up with this:

Second place team (17-11) vs third place team (16-12). That's how you become a one-bid league.

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS NO!

What makes Xavier, Butler, VCU and Temple quality wins?

It's NOT the name on the front of the jersey, otherwise La Salle, Bonaventure, Jacksonville, Seattle, San Francisco and all the other teams who made a Final Four 40+ years ago would still be "quality wins."

They're quality wins becuase they WIN THEIR OOC GAMES. Period. That's it.

Was Saint Louis a quality win last season? (RPI of #31. NCAA at-large.) Who'd they beat OOC to make them a quality win? They played the #189 OOC SOS and didn't beat a single Top 70 team OOC. They were 11-2 OOC. So when four A-10 teams beat them, those were quality wins for Xavier and Temple.


We are guaranteed to go .500 in conference, no different than before. Our first place team will be 13-3 or 12-4. Our second place team will be 12-4 or 11-5. Our third-place team will be 11-5 or 10-6, and our fourth place team will be 11-5, 10-6 or 9-7. And those four teams will play each other. And if those four teams win a lot of OOC games, they will all count as quality wins against each other.

What you do NOT want to do is say "We lost Xavier, we lost Temple, we lost Butler... we better schedule tougher OOC!" and go 6-6 in those tough games and end up with this:

Second place team (17-11) vs third place team (16-12). That's how you become a one-bid league.

No, the point is that you have multiple teams that have solid RPIs when you have good teams at the top. You want to schedule teams in OOC that you beat, but they need to be the TOP teams you can beat. The top teams that Temple, VCU, X and Butler can beat are far better than the teams that the bottom of the league can beat. This is what makes them good wins during the conference season. Losing to them doesn't help at all obviously.

I think it's a no brainer for the lesser teams in the league straight up schedule for wins. But I don't think that cuts it for teams at the top of the league. They need marquee wins to get recognition and get some room for error in conference, especially in a conference that will no doubt be less well regarded after defections. They have clear motivation to schedule at least a few good games to increase their chances of getting in and getting a good seed.

Also it's reductive to say that RPI is everything that is looked at in terms of bids. There is a reason why they like to list good wins and bad losses. Lack of quality teams at the top with quality out of conference wins means less chances for quality wins for teams in the conference.

[xavierhoops]

Agree with bprichard. It is going to be difficult enough to get multiple bids out of the A-10 with Xavier, Temple, Butler and Dayton/SLU and possibly VCU gone. Advocating the remaining teams go out and play weak OOC schedules with winninable games so the conference RPI is high is going to make it even more difficult to get bids. If Xavier had not had the scheduling philosophy it has over the past 7-8 years of playing one of the most difficult OOC schedules in the country, they wouldn't have had the success they experienced. The A-10 just wasn't (pre Butler and VCU) strong enough to get enough statement wins.

Jp, I appreciate your continual mathematic analyses. I will just remind you again, the NCAA field and seeding is selected by a group of individuals, not a computer. The name on the front of the jersey DOES mean something. That's part of the reason Xavier's loss to Vanderbilt is going to look a whole lot better than if they lost to ... pick a school... Seattle. While Vandy may be just as bad as Seattle this year mathematically, the loss still won't look as bad as a Seattle loss would because of the reputation/recent history/success of the program

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

Agree with bprichard. It is going to be difficult enough to get multiple bids out of the A-10 with Xavier, Temple, Butler and Dayton/SLU and possibly VCU gone. Advocating the remaining teams go out and play weak OOC schedules with winninable games so the conference RPI is high is going to make it even more difficult to get bids. If Xavier had not had the scheduling philosophy it has over the past 7-8 years of playing one of the most difficult OOC schedules in the country, they wouldn't have had the success they experienced. The A-10 just wasn't (pre Butler and VCU) strong enough to get enough statement wins.

Jp, I appreciate your continual mathematic analyses. I will just remind you again, the NCAA field and seeding is selected by a group of individuals, not a computer. The name on the front of the jersey DOES mean something. That's part of the reason Xavier's loss to Vanderbilt is going to look a whole lot better than if they lost to ... pick a school... Seattle. While Vandy may be just as bad as Seattle this year mathematically, the loss still won't look as bad as a Seattle loss would because of the reputation/recent history/success of the program

Another important aspect of the Xavier scheduling philosophy is that it exposes them to challenging teams with different playing styles throughout the season at home, neutral and away venues.

It brings up some important points: Are you playing just to get into the tournament or do you want to win once you're there? Are you fine with being an 11 seed or do you want to put yourself in position to be favored?

I realize this doesn't work for every team in a conference. But if you think your team is good enough to succeed in the tournament, it's the way to go.

[Always La Salle]

LET'S GET SERIOUS.

No current A 10" team is going to be kicked out or dropped from the conference. If there remains an A 10 the all current members may stay if they wish. What legitimate reasons would you have for kicking a team out?

Small on campus arena? Many current a10. And Big East members have on campus arena of less tan 3500 seat capacity, thus the play many games @ public arenas. Grown,Sienna, Xavier, etc etc

Kick someone out because of a poor basketball record? We are an all sports comference not just a money losing/generating one sports conference.. Colleges usuallhave an athletic mission statement emphasisizing being representative in multiple athletic endeavors. Read you school's athletic Mission.

If you kick out any of the schools mentioned, how much money will you need to pay them to avoid resulting law suits that will be certain to follow.

If the Catholic Seven take seven A10 schools the new conference will have a new identity. The remaining seven A10'schools retain the A10 Brand.

Not an easy assignment tring to configure new alignments isit?

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by bprichard

No, the point is that you have multiple teams that have solid RPIs when you have good teams at the top. You want to schedule teams in OOC that you beat, but they need to be the TOP teams you can beat. The top teams that Temple, VCU, X and Butler can beat are far better than the teams that the bottom of the league can beat. This is what makes them good wins during the conference season. Losing to them doesn't help at all obviously.

I think it's a no brainer for the lesser teams in the league straight up schedule for wins. But I don't think that cuts it for teams at the top of the league. They need marquee wins to get recognition and get some room for error in conference, especially in a conference that will no doubt be less well regarded after defections. They have clear motivation to schedule at least a few good games to increase their chances of getting in and getting a good seed.

Also it's reductive to say that RPI is everything that is looked at in terms of bids. There is a reason why they like to list good wins and bad losses. Lack of quality teams at the top with quality out of conference wins means less chances for quality wins for teams in the conference.

Everything you said in the first two paragraphs is something I agree with (for the most part).

What I was passionately opposed to is the idea that we'd have to schedule MORE tough teams because Temple and Xavier leave.

Xavier is a marquee win because they: Win OOC games, finish in the top four of the A10 every year. If our top four teams win OOC games, Xavier doesn't need to "be replaced" on the schedule with a tougher OOC opponent.

Dayton should not change a damned thing about their OOC with Xavier gone. If they play X OOC, it should take the place of a marquee game, and they should keep beating their 8-10 cupcakes every single year.

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

Agree with bprichard. It is going to be difficult enough to get multiple bids out of the A-10 with Xavier, Temple, Butler and Dayton/SLU and possibly VCU gone. Advocating the remaining teams go out and play weak OOC schedules with winninable games so the conference RPI is high is going to make it even more difficult to get bids.

That is false. It's counter-productive. It is how we ended up with one bid in 2005 when three A-10 teams played OOC schedules that were in the TOP NINE of OOC SOS. They got effing smoked.

For the umpteenth time: No one is saying don't play ANYONE DIFFICULT. The philosophy is "We need to go .700 OOC. Make sure that happens. If you're going to play four hard teams and go 1-3, your other 8 games better be cupcakes."

We should schedule no differently than a major conference. Because we are better than all the other non-major conferences. All we have to do is propagate the myth that we're a major conference by beating the tar out of bad teams and turning down opportunities to play teams that will beat us badly.

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

If Xavier had not had the scheduling philosophy it has over the past 7-8 years of playing one of the most difficult OOC schedules in the country, they wouldn't have had the success they experienced. The A-10 just wasn't (pre Butler and VCU) strong enough to get enough statement wins.

We've been over this. Xavier's challenging OOC schedule gets them to an 8-5 OOC record every year. They are doing what I am suggesting we all do. "Eight cupcake wins… then challenge yourself." The only difference is the definition of cupcake for Xavier and Bona are totally different.

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

Jp, I appreciate your continual mathematic analyses. I will just remind you again, the NCAA field and seeding is selected by a group of individuals, not a computer. The name on the front of the jersey DOES mean something. That's part of the reason Xavier's loss to Vanderbilt is going to look a whole lot better than if they lost to ... pick a school... Seattle. While Vandy may be just as bad as Seattle this year mathematically, the loss still won't look as bad as a Seattle loss would because of the reputation/recent history/success of the program

Yes, and if your math is good, everyone changes their opinion.

Look at St. Bonaventure and Saint Louis. Bonaventure was a good team last year. They won the A10 tournament. They lost by a measley 3 points to Florida State in the NCAA tournament.

Saint Louis was a good team last year. They beat Memphis in the dance and lost to Michigan State by a couple points.

SLU went 11-2 OOC, #31 RPI. They didn't beat a top 70 RPI team OOC. 1-1 vs the Top 100 OOC. 10-1 vs 100+
Bona went 7-5 OOC, #72 RPI. They didn't beat a top 70 RPI team OOC. 2-3 vs the Top 100 OOC. 5-2 vs 100+

Bona played more good teams, lost more games, and wouldn't have made the dance if not for three days in AC.
SLU played less good teams, won more games, and provided a quality win to the rest of the league (AND STILL MADE THE TOURNAMENT AS AN AT-LARGE).

Had Bona beaten Eastern Illinois instead of losing to Illinois, and beaten Green Bay instead of losing to Cleveland State, their RPI is .5781 (Before factoring in what that does to the entire A-10's SOS). And they are #47 instead of #72. Everyone else in the A-10 has their RPIs go up slightly. Xavier, Temple, SLU and UMass get one more Top 50 win each. And it's better for the league.

Do you need more examples?