Conference thread

Tonight we find out if the rest of the season is worth any time at all
 
Bona03 said:
Tonight we find out if the rest of the season is worth any time at all
Click to expand...
This team has 11-7 written all over it. Not bad enough to tune out completely, but just good enough to get your hopes up then disappoint.

We could win the next three games and I wouldn't be all that surprised, but how we follow that up is what disappoints me. Nonetheless, getting back to .500 would be a good and attainable goal.
 
The team quit the other night. It was obvious in their body language on the court. It was obvious on the bench, when they looked like they were barely listening during timeouts. Schmidt looked like he was barely even saying anything in those huddles.

I heard the same rumor Unfurled posted the other night re: MAW/Schmidt blowout in practice. I also hated the fact that I saw him make post game comments blaming 3 different players for why they couldnt close it out.

I wont pretend to know what's going on behind closed doors. When internal strife is present, it tends to result in one of two ways. Full on implosion, or banding together and coming out better for it. If there's shit going on, it's going to take all of them- Schmidt included- to put it aside, and use it with a 'back against the wall' (or whatever cliche you prefer) approach.

If we go the implosion route, I'll end up watching for the wrong reasons.
 
Community Bank 3Pt Tee said:
The team quit the other night. It was obvious in their body language on the court. It was obvious on the bench, when they looked like they were barely listening during timeouts. Schmidt looked like he was barely even saying anything in those huddles.

I heard the same rumor Unfurled posted the other night re: MAW/Schmidt blowout in practice. I also hated the fact that I saw him make post game comments blaming 3 different players for why they couldnt close it out.

I wont pretend to know what's going on behind closed doors. When internal strife is present, it tends to result in one of two ways. Full on implosion, or banding together and coming out better for it. If there's shit going on, it's going to take all of them- Schmidt included- to put it aside, and use it with a 'back against the wall' (or whatever cliche you prefer) approach.

If we go the implosion route, I'll end up watching for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happen mid year in 2022 around the VT game. Good teams don't just lose by 40...who knows, but it's a troubling trend
 
We need a win in the worst way

I am surprised by everyone’s reaction, I thought Schmidt deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point, (17 years) when working with many players that haven’t even been here for 17 months
 
I don't have nearly as much a problem with the net as many of our fans. I'm still not sold on the Quads for home opponents being qualitatively aligned. SJU and VCU, our most recent and next opponent, on a blind resume (I know, HAHA at us being an AL candidate) would fall in the same bucket as a pair of home games against IUPUFW and UDEL.

I just don't see it. I don't see oddsmakers giving us a close to equal chance against the former vs the latter. I am depending on res to correct me if I am wrong.
 
Community Bank 3Pt Tee said:
I don't have nearly as much a problem with the net as many of our fans. I'm still not sold on the Quads for home opponents being qualitatively aligned. SJU and VCU, our most recent and next opponent, on a blind resume (I know, HAHA at us being an AL candidate) would fall in the same bucket as a pair of home games against IUPUFW and UDEL.

I just don't see it. I don't see oddsmakers giving us a close to equal chance against the former vs the latter. I am depending on res to correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I like NET for the most part. The quad system is better than using arbitrary cutoffs to determine which games are goods wins and which aren't. A win over a top 100 team should have never been a metric, whereas saying you have 3,4 or 5 Q1 wins is measurable.

People seem to hate NET because of the large moves teams experience after big wins and losses, but I think it's fair for the most part. I also think the committee is mostly consistent with which bubble teams make it and don't. There's no real reason why the A10 can't be a 3-4 bid conference most years.

Dayton, VCU, SLU, Richmond and even Saint Joe's have the facilities, MBB budget and fan support to make the tourney most years. If you compare budgets between the MWC and A10, it makes the growing disparity between the two even more puzzling. Add in the fact some of the MWC schools are pretty isolated, so getting good home games OOC has to be more expensive compared to A10 schools.

Top MWC budget with their national ranking:
(1,89) Utah State - $4.80M
(2,92) SDSU - $4.26M
(3,96) UNLV - $4.02M
(4,103) Col. State - $3.68M
Top A10 budgets with their national ranking:
(1,72) Dayton - $5.9M
(2,74) VCU - $5.89M
(3,75) SLU - $5.79M
(4,93) Richmond - $4.2M
(5,94) Saint Joe's - $4.14M
(6,98) Duquesne - $3.96M
(7,100) Loyola - $3.83M
(8,102) George Mason - $3.69M
(9,107) Rhode Island - $3.63M
(10,108) Fordham - $3.57M

These numbers are from 2022, so Schmidt's increase in salary is not even included here.

SBU checked in at 120th in the country here at $2.99M which was higher than Boise State, Fresno State, San Jose State and presumably Air Force. Bona was only ~$9,000 behind Wyoming and $200,000 behind both New Mexico and Nevada.

With 2024 figures, there's a fair chance that SBU's MBB budget in the MWC would be fifth out of the 11 schools.
 
The NET really isnt bad if you take it for what it is, a sorting tool. The committee only uses it for that purpose so from that perspective it does a decent job. Its an easy way to see who you have played and what type of win/loss was it. When I am making a seed list, the NET ranking doesnt even come into play. I get the argument that a home win over VCU is the "same" as Delaware but if we are being honest, the Q3/4 games dont matter so much as long as you win them. Good wins will more than cancel bad losses too. They also do look at the teams themselves. Take SMU. Their NET is really high for reasons I cant fathom other than they havent gotten their ass kicked and they beat up some bad teams. Regardless, a win over them will not resonate like a Q1 win over Alabama.

Back to the A10. 3Shay had a great post. It shows that as a whole the A10 is really underachieving the last few years. I think VCU will rebound with Odom. Davidson is the team that disappoints me only because the younger McKillop has not been able to sustain what his father did. St Joes under Lange probably wont ever threaten and neither will Duq under Dambrot. UMass sold their soul for football. I admire the MW because they do exactly what they should be doing and they are smaller so they dont have the bloat of La Salle, Fordham most years and GW...etc.

Oh, and the Bonnies are 4.5 favorites tonight and i wouldnt bet that with Bill Russell's money
 
Yeah I don’t mean to make it seem like the quads aren’t better than top 50/top100/no further qualifier. They’re useful, I just think the parameters could use a look.

To me it’s really the 76-100ish range, and getting next to no credit for beating them at home. There’s a pretty steep drop off after high 90s/low 100s. Beating VCU and SJU at home shouldn’t necessarily boost your resume, but they are notably tougher games than home against Cal Baptist. I’m just not sold on the parameters tossing both of them into the who cares pile.

Re the rest of 3rds post, couldn’t agree more. The woe is the A10 thing irritates me. None of those MwC teams are doing anything crazy in schedule or budget. They just have seized their opportunities in recent years.
 
Community Bank 3Pt Tee said:
To me it’s really the 76-100ish range, and getting next to no credit for beating them at home.
Click to expand...
I think the home court penalty in the Q system is too harsh. I could see 1..50 at home being Q1 - those are damn hard games. And yeah 76..100 being Q3? No way. Tonight's game is a Q3, in what world would a win over VCU tonight be worth no more than a win over, say, IPFW?

No way I'd touch tonight's line. Bet the farm on the over.
 
brownindians85 said:
I think the home court penalty in the Q system is too harsh. I could see 1..50 at home being Q1 - those are damn hard games. And yeah 76..100 being Q3? No way. Tonight's game is a Q3, in what world would a win over VCU tonight be worth no more than a win over, say, IPFW?

No way I'd touch tonight's line. Bet the farm on the over.
Click to expand...
I get that, but it also helps limit the P5's ability to call basically any conference win a Q1/2.

Let's just say 51-100 at home is a Q2....that means Michigan State beating Rutgers at home is a good win? Ehhh that is a stretch this year. Or how about Arizona beating Southern California at home? They would be a Q2 despite their 8-12 record.

Then throw in the road games. Right now top 135 is a Q2, so if you pushed that to 160, you'd almost get Notre Dame in there.
 
they should do something similar to English soccer's FA cup midseason.

There are 32 conferences, take the top 2 from each conference the year before and assign them a random number 1-64. Lottery that shite for the matchups and home courts. and then have the two teams play, the winner advances to the next round for another lottery until theres a midseason FA cup winner.

the games count as regular season games and for your tourney resume.

if the balls come up randomly Kansas AT Longwood or something, thats cool. Its the biggest night in Longwood ever and another Q2/Q1 type regular season game for Kansas
 
I am down for just about anything that takes away the ability to schedule 9 Q4 home games and then beat the snot out of them and reap the metric benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top