Proposed A10 Thread for "Realists"

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by bprichard

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.

What good is preparing for a tournament if you don't make it? All things considered, I'd rather have my name on the bracket, get paid if I lose, use that money and exposure to recruit better players than I had before, helping me to get there again. That's how you put a program on the map and THEN you can kick some ass.

When did Gonzaga start playing six tough OOC opponents every single year?

In 1997, when they had never made an NCAA Tournament, they played ONE Top 100 RPI team OOC (Colorado State, they lost).

They didn't start playing a "let's get an at-large by showing everyone how good we are" schedule until they had Top 25 talent. Talent they got from playing weak SOS and getting their names on the bracket.

[xavierhoops]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

Do you need more examples?

No, you've given plenty of math exercises, which by the way, I do think mean something. However, I think you are substantially underestimating perception. So, so much is based on perception, reputation, success etc.

The other thing I don't think you're factoring in is your math stuff is SO season-specific. When programs are building OOC schedules, they are building them 2,3,4 or 5 years out. You schedule based on perception, reputation.. as you say, "the name on the jersey." Look at X's schedule this year. It will turn out to be one of our weaker schedules in recent history. But when Mercurio, Mack and Bobinski were building the schedule 2,3,4 years ago... you look at the names.. Purdue, Butler, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Tennessee, Cincinnati plus whatever pre-season tourney we were supposed to be in before we moved to Anaheim. 3 years ago, it looked like a much, much tougher schedule than actually is today. So you can talk about how the A-10 should schedule all you want... but even if all the programs took your advice when the actual schedules are built... it could look totally different 3 years later.

Oh, can you also do me a favor and determine what 8 schools Xavier schedules as cupcakes every season?? I don't think you'll be able to. Xavier doesn't follow your philosophy of 5 challenging games and 8 cupcakes as you think they do.

[Bill Russell]

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

However, I think you are substantially underestimating perception. So, so much is based on perception, reputation, success etc.

I agree. Perception has, in some cases, conquered reality in the world of college basketball--especially in the BCS leagues.

[jpschmack]

The perception is the BCS football conferences are major conferences and we're a "mid-major."

We need to fight that perception.

What's the solution? Play them more OOC, hopefully beat them in the regular season when few are watching; probably lose more often than not which will make people believe the myth more, devalue our conference season, get fewer NCAA bids and when they get tons of bids in March and we're in the NIT, everyone will continue to believe it?

OR do we simply do what they do and act like a major conference? Rack up huge records, get marquee wins vs each other, get lots of NCAA bids and look like them?


Before you answer: We are 160-307 (.343) vs BCS teams the last decade, and .682 vs everyone else.

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

Originally Posted by 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.

Gotcha. One thing I will say for the "new" A-10, should we lose UD, X, SLU and Butler is that these boards will be a lot quieter, but quite a bit more civil.

[bprichard]

But what has helped the perception of the A10 the most? Our top teams, Xavier and Temple (and hey, I'm going to throw Dayton in there because I don't get to do that often, but we have a stellar record against BCS conference teams) play BCS teams and punch them in the nose.

But yeah, our teams that don't have a good chance of winning those games should not be playing them.

Our reputation is really made by how we do in the tournament though. Most college basketball fans aren't as engaged as college football fans. Success really is measured in Sweet 16s and Final Fours. And I stand by what I said earlier about X. Their tough out of conference schedule makes them battle tested, fearless in conference play, and armed with the experience to play with anyone without being intimidated. Of course, it's key that Xavier also has the players to make this viable.

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by Bona Wolf for Pope

Gotcha. One thing I will say for the "new" A-10, should we lose UD, X, SLU and Butler is that these boards will be a lot quieter, but quite a bit more civil.

You g*d d*mned bastard! You take that back right now! RARRARARARRARAR!

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

Originally Posted by bprichard

You g*d d*mned bastard! You take that back right now! RARRARARARRARAR!

I had sexual relations with your mother.

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by Bona Wolf for Pope

I had sexual relations with your mother.

Dad?

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

Originally Posted by bprichard

Dad?

Aw, man, one of my kids turned out to be a Dayton fan.

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by Bona Wolf for Pope

Aw, man, one of my kids turned out to be a Dayton fan.

I'm just glad my father didn't turn out to be a Xavier fan.

[mgalici]

That retooled A-10 seems pretty good, Davidson and Mason are good additions. I also agree that Duquesne should go south to form even divisions, and hey, as a Fordham fan, we might even be competitive in the watered down conference.

[xavierhoops]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

OR do we simply do what they do and act like a major conference? Rack up huge records, get marquee wins vs each other, get lots of NCAA bids and look like them?

Marquee wins?? That's the point... they won't be considered marquee wins because of perception.

I'll ask again, how do you schedule OOC to "rack up" wins? I know you like your math formulas, but I don't think even you could predict RPI's etc 2,3,4 years out for teams. Teams build OOC schedules based on perception, reputation, recent history etc.

[Bona Wolf for Pope]

Originally Posted by bprichard

I'm just glad my father didn't turn out to be a Xavier fan.

And, scene.

For people concerned about being in a 1-2 bid league...that's all we were getting before. When you skim off what Xavier and Temple were bringing in, there were a couple of bids a year. We'll just have to make due without the money or exposure they brought to the A-10.

[steve19981]

I'll take a shot at this, I really think who you add and how many will be determined by the number of teams the conference loses. I've listed some scenarios below:

- If Xavier leaves, add Mason.

- If Butler or Dayton and Xavier are the only two who leave, add Bradley and Murray St.

- If Butler or Dayton, Xavier and St Louis leave, add Mason.

- If Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and St Louis leave, don't do anything.

- If Butler, Xavier, Dayton and a Richmond team leave, add Bradley and Murray St.

- If Butler, Xavier, Dayton, St Louis and a Richmond team leave, add Mason.

- If Butler, Xavier, Dayton, St Louis, UMass and a Richmond team leave, Mason and Belmont.

- If those teams plus another leave get back to ten with what you have left. There will still be NCAA units to keep the league afloat for a while.