The Future A10 Thread - Page 5 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums
BasketballForum.com is the premier basketball Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
User Tag List

Like Tree17Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 09:07 AM   #61 (permalink)
Player
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 21706
jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of jdm2000 has much to be proud of
Re: The Future A10 Thread

I agree with xu95's comments upthread. As an X fan, the A10 has been great, and I really like the schools in the league. I hope--whoever ends up leaving--that the league is able to regroup and be strong going forward.

As for potential additions, I really have no idea. How about Stony Brook? That seems like a strong school that is building up in athletics.
jdm2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-01-2013, 10:53 AM   #62 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 346 Post(s)
Rep Power: 185200
jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleo View Post
Why not just stay with these 10? There aren't a lot of obvious teams to add. Siena and [George Mason] come to mind first because they have nice sized arenas with fan bases. But I don't see why the A10 has to add them now. If UMass leaves then maybe pick up one of them. I would hate to see the A10 add a bunch of smaller mid-major schools just because it fellt like it had to. If they don't add clear value, then don't add them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moliva View Post
Stay at 10. If Umass leaves, get Davidson.

Play an 18 game season round robin and move the tourney back to The Palestra.
You don't want 10 and an 18-game schedule. That would hurt our RPIs a ton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shook187 View Post
That looks like a one bid league to me. The A10 is toast if you ask me.
You're looking at it from a "how many bids has each team gotten recently" perspective.

If you put the top 10 teams in the country in one conference, someone is going 5-13.
Likewise, if you put the worst 10 teams in the country in one conference, someone is winning 13 conference games.

The future A-10 will be a multi-bid league… IF we keep the same scheduling model in place and ADs don't (very stupididly) over-react and amp up their OOC schedules to account for the loss of Xavier and Temple.

It's very simple: Win OOC games and you're fine. If we win OOC games at the same clip, our top four teams in the standings will be in the same positions nationally they always were. Maybe even better because the ACC schedule just got murderous, the Big Ten schedule got tougher, the MWC schedule got tougher, and Butler and VCU are no longer at-large bid stealers out of the Horizon and CAA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xu95 View Post
I can honestly say I have enjoyed my teams time in the A10. The conference did us a huge favor by getting us out of the piss poor MCC. I hope for the sake of the conference you still get multiple bids in the NCAA tournament.
You're a class act, '95. I "dislike" Xavier because you're constantly beating my alma mater, but I root for X out of conference and in the dance. I hope you and Butler dominate the new Big East and show them the A-10 really hasn't been their little brothers the last 40 years.
jpschmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:00 AM   #63 (permalink)
Veteran
 
Knobby's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Rep Power: 269279
Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute Knobby has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Oh goodie - JPSchmack is back to show us with his abacus how the new A-10 will still be a 4 bid league!
__________________
Well, we were smaller, but at least we were slower!
Knobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:08 AM   #64 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 346 Post(s)
Rep Power: 185200
jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute jpschmack has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knobby View Post
Oh goodie - JPSchmack is back to show us with his abacus how the new A-10 will still be a 4 bid league!
You're welcome.
jpschmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:32 AM   #65 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Rep Power: 2221
antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all antboy is a name known to all
Re: The Future A10 Thread

As a rare Niner fan that actually hopes Davidson is good most years, I'm still a bit surprised to see them mentioned as such an obvious inclusion. McKillop has done a solid job there, but they have some real hurdles to overcome (attendance, small school, expensive travel for all sports, limited support/exposure in the nearby Charlotte market, and some recruiting limitations). These aren't deal killers given what some of the A10 programs struggle with, but it seems like other schools would be more obvious choices.

Siena seems like a more obvious choice to me. George Mason has a lot going for it, despite what some of the rival VCU fans say, given the choices. College of Charleston might work if you do want to head south, though they probably have similar limitations as Davidson. You might consider some of the MAC teams, like Kent St or Ohio, though they might not want to join. Belmont is a tougher case, but Murray St. makes some sense.

Outside maybe Siena and George Mason (assuming they can both improve on the court), I'm also not sure how much the other schools add to the A10's current lineup. Why add more schools if they're not raising the average? You're just further dividing the money among schools that are unlikely to add much money back in.
antboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:34 AM   #66 (permalink)
Saint Louis Billikens
Photobucket
 
EpicFailGuy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St. Louis Metro
Posts: 14,836
Mentioned: 285 Post(s)
Tagged: 6 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Rep Power: 1858433
EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute EpicFailGuy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Future A10 Thread

If SLU/Dayton remain, I'd like to see consideration for Murray St.
__________________
St. Louis Cardinals--Hoping that 2014 doesn't turn into 1988.

Mizzou NCAA Tournament wins since 2003: 4
Mizzou basketball arrests since 3/17/2014: 6
Any questions?

KVBL Detroit Pistons

2023 KVBL Champions: St. Louis Warriors (El Shaqtus)

2026 KVBL First Loser
2038 KVBL First Loser
2 BBBL First Losers
EpicFailGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:23 PM   #67 (permalink)
Player
 

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Rep Power: 13059
College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of College Hoops has much to be proud of
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Its not only having a similar vision of what you want the conference to become (athletically), but also the commitment from ALL the members to get there. If its east-coastcentric keep it simple,add a Siena & perhaps Northeastern and call it a day with two divisions of six each. Actually, I would like to see the A-10 get really creative and move to something like 18-20 teams. bring-in a Wichita State, Bradley, Evansville, Illinois State, Cleveland State Belmont, Murray State etc. You get your east/west or north/south set-up playing home & home within your division and split with the teams in the other division. The creative part is this is for men's and women's bb only. You keep the divisional set-up for the other sports, and where it works geographically you can schedule schools in the other division. Alot of schools schedule non-revenue sports will non- conference schools that are nearby.
College Hoops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:35 PM   #68 (permalink)
Player
 
BrownIndians85's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Rep Power: 10285
BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of
Re: The Future A10 Thread

@jpschmack - i like your effort, but this time your spreadsheets and trigonometrics aren't going to work out. Depending on who are the replacement teams for the A-10, if any, you're looking at a 2 bid league, max. Based on your logic, the Summit conference should get 3 bids for the 20+ win teams that are crushing in the conference and did well OOC. Not happening. The math doesn't add up. Unless you think the remaining A-10 members are going to feast on BCS schools in the OOC slate.

Look at the teams objectively and let's give them a Big Dance at-large likelihood rating based on last 5 years performance:
URI - low
UMass - below average
Fordham - nil
LaSalle - low
St. Joe's - average
Richmond - average
VCU - above average
GW - low
Duquesne - low
SBU - low

With a diminished conference schedule and similar OOC results to years past, we may get 1 at-large bid, provided that team doesn't win the conference tournament. The teams that are leaving have more at-larges than the remaining 10 in the last 5 years alone. This is not a multi-bid league, and when I say multi-bid I mean multiple at-larges. It might get >1 bid only when the conf tourney champ is not the league leader.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if that's not the case, but be realistic.
__________________
http://www.gobonnies.com
BrownIndians85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:42 PM   #69 (permalink)
Player
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Rep Power: 3987
A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all
Re: The Future A10 Thread

North Division
UMass (eventually replaced by Northeastern or Boston U.)
Rhody
SBU
Duquesne
Fordham
Siena or another new entrant

South Division
La Salle
SJU
GW
Richmond
VCU
G. Mason (or new entrant)

Logistically it wont happen... But if the teams in the proposed south division, they would want to play each other twice just because they would be playing 3 or 4 teams (depending on who you are) that should be in the top 100 each year (6 or 8 games total) that would be great for their overall numbers and then play 2-3 games against random teams in the north. Remember the A-10 started to doing this in 2005 when Xavier didn't want to play La Salle and Fordham twice year, so they did unbalanced scheduling...

If they were to do this, it would protect the other schools in South from the lack of quality teams left in the A-10 but schools like St Bona would not like this... But if this conference wants to be a multi-bid league they are going to have to be creative and leverage the existing teams that would be competitive for at large bids similar to 2005...

Since there is only 12 teams, all teams make it into the tournament...
A10BBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:51 PM   #70 (permalink)
Player
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Rep Power: 3987
A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownIndians85 View Post
@jpschmack - i like your effort, but this time your spreadsheets and trigonometrics aren't going to work out. Depending on who are the replacement teams for the A-10, if any, you're looking at a 2 bid league, max. Based on your logic, the Summit conference should get 3 bids for the 20+ win teams that are crushing in the conference and did well OOC. Not happening. The math doesn't add up. Unless you think the remaining A-10 members are going to feast on BCS schools in the OOC slate.

Look at the teams objectively and let's give them a Big Dance at-large likelihood rating based on last 5 years performance:
URI - low
UMass - below average
Fordham - nil
LaSalle - low
St. Joe's - average
Richmond - average
VCU - above average
GW - low
Duquesne - low
SBU - low

With a diminished conference schedule and similar OOC results to years past, we may get 1 at-large bid, provided that team doesn't win the conference tournament. The teams that are leaving have more at-larges than the remaining 10 in the last 5 years alone. This is not a multi-bid league, and when I say multi-bid I mean multiple at-larges. It might get >1 bid only when the conf tourney champ is not the league leader.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if that's not the case, but be realistic.
What does 5 year average have to do with anything? You are factoring players than have nothing to do with the current crop or future crop of players. What does a team's performance 5 years ago have to with this year or next year's?

In 2008-09: (picking random teams)

Xavier was 17 RPI
Dayton was 27 RPI
URI was 68 RPI
Duquesne was 75 RPI

Are those schools listed above 2012-13 RPIs even remotely close to those 2008-09 figures?


In total using historical averages over a couple year time frame to project teams proves frankly useless because of the turnover of players.
A10BBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:55 PM   #71 (permalink)
6th Man
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Rep Power: 236
mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by A10BBall View Post
What does 5 year average have to do with anything? You are factoring players than have nothing to do with the current crop or future crop of players. What does a team's performance 5 years ago have to with this year or next year's?

In 2008-09: (picking random teams)

Xavier was 17 RPI
Dayton was 27 RPI
URI was 68 RPI
Duquesne was 75 RPI

Are those schools listed above 2012-13 RPIs even remotely close to those 2008-09 figures?


In total using historical averages over a couple year time frame to project teams proves frankly useless because of the turnover of players.
Average performance is important in evaluating teams because it reduces the effect individual players have on a teams performance and shows you how you can expect a program to perform based on how it has historically performed through multiple crops of players. Sustained success is the hallmark of a good program, and averaging a program's performance over many seasons is the only way to gauge this. That being said, a larger sample size (possibly 10 year average) would make more sense, but the conclusions would still be similar.
mm4cc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:07 PM   #72 (permalink)
Player
 
BrownIndians85's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Rep Power: 10285
BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of BrownIndians85 has much to be proud of
Re: The Future A10 Thread

@A10BBall - so we should use what? A 1 year sample? LaSalle will be an at-large all the time? Duquesne and Rhody will suck forever? No way. I agree with mm4cc 10 years would probably have been better. I could have just said I used the eye test based on historical performance in the A-10 and I've had come up with the same conclusion. Teams are who they are give or take a good or bad season here or there. And in the diminished A-10 recruiting will be tougher, scheduling good teams will be tougher, and the conference slate will be worse for our RPIs.

And for Christ's sake, Siena, Northeastern, Boston? Seriously? Why? Why would we look at bad teams just to get to 12? Why dilute the product further? You're adding in 3 schools that are A-10 bottom half quality in their best years.
__________________
http://www.gobonnies.com
BrownIndians85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:08 PM   #73 (permalink)
Player
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Rep Power: 3987
A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all A10BBall is a name known to all
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4cc View Post
Average performance is important in evaluating teams because it reduces the effect individual players have on a teams performance and shows you how you can expect a program to perform based on how it has historically performed through multiple crops of players. Sustained success is the hallmark of a good program, and averaging a program's performance over many seasons is the only way to gauge this. That being said, a larger sample size (possibly 10 year average) would make more sense, but the conclusions would still be similar.
Did you actually read what I just wrote... I just completely proved your theory wrong...

Going to 10 years is even worse... It involves more players that have nothing to do with the immediate future...

Programs change with coaches.. Players change with coaches... The only consistent variable would be Athletic Directors and they have little to no impact on a basketball program.. Other than hiring a coach..

I understand your mindset but it is not pertinent metric to what you are trying to compare because the variables change to often... So if you take a 5 year range of URI is 68 and 195, how do you even draw a projection from different players and coaches..
A10BBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:10 PM   #74 (permalink)
Examiner
 
iBOsbu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Capital Beltway
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Rep Power: 1796
iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all iBOsbu is a name known to all
Re: The Future A10 Thread

I remember this Times article when the news first broke about Big East break up... author used 10 years of average performance (sagarin) to evaluate potential additions... scroll down to the last table
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tball-schools/
__________________
Knicks - Giants - Seawolves
iBOsbu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:18 PM   #75 (permalink)
6th Man
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Rep Power: 236
mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough mm4cc is a jewel in the rough
Re: The Future A10 Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by A10BBall View Post
Did you actually read what I just wrote... I just completely proved your theory wrong...

Going to 10 years is even worse... It involves more players that have nothing to do with the immediate future...

Programs change with coaches.. Players change with coaches... The only consistent variable would be Athletic Directors and they have little to no impact on a basketball program.. Other than hiring a coach..

I understand your mindset but it is not pertinent metric to what you are trying to compare because the variables change to often... So if you take a 5 year range of URI is 68 and 195, how do you even draw a projection from different players and coaches..
I read what you wrote, I just disagree with you. What you are saying would be true if the quality of a programs recruits and the quality of a programs coach changed COMPLETELY RANDOMLY every single season. This obviously isn't the case. UNC, Kansas, Duke etc all recruit very good players every year. How do we know they will have good players in their next recruiting class? Well they have consistently recruited good players on average for a very long time, so we can assume that they will continue to recruit similar quality players in the future. In the same way we can assume most programs continue to recruit similar quality players from year to year on average. And we can assume that the average performance of a program will be similar to its recent average performance historically.

I hope this post makes sense to you and you realize that predicting future performance based off of past trends is a very logical thing to do (instead of suggesting that past performance has no correlation with future performance and the quality of a program is essentially random from year to year.)
mm4cc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 PM.



User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 — 2013 BasketballBoards.net.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1