Section9_RowD
Starter
Yah but sort of old news given their home loss against Delaware imo - but good point99-86 over WM vs 90-86 ?
2025-2026 - NET, Rankings, Polls, Awards
- Thread starter Section9_RowD
- Start date
Is there a published A10 SOS?
It ain't pretty.
OOC SOS ranks according to NET:
46. VCU
132. Duquesne
157. Dayton
170. Rhody
195. GW
209. Davidson
263. Bona
294. St. Joe's
311. Richmond
313. La Salle
324. Mason
330. SLU
334. Loyola
364. Fordham
Thx. So we have a good NET at 80, but that reflects a SOS of 311.
That SOS will put a ceiling to our Net.
Inexcusable. Just be inside 200, and we can maybe be considered for an at large if we have a great A-10 season, but this 300+ crap will just eliminate all discussion.
I'm still withholding judgement. I don't know how good we are. if we go 14-4 in conference then yes we're good and we killed our at-large chances with a bad OOC schedule.
but if we go 9-9 in-conference, then we aren't that good and the OOC didn't hold us back. in that case, the weak OOC schedule is the only reason we're even talking about blown at-large chances.
Urmite
Bench player
That doesn’t include games played yesterday and the future. Correct?
Some of those could drop further.
Correct, it only includes games already played.
VCU's SOS rank dropped 10 spots to 56 after last night's game against a really weak Niagara squad. Everybody else was idle and didn't move more than a few spots.
Eight Legger
Bench player
On the positive side, hey, we are one of just 10 teams in D1 that are undefeated in Q1 games!
Basketball is the only sport I know where your fate is seemingly sealed before the first tip off. Lets play the games and see where the chips fall before consigning ourselves to also rans.
And don't get me started on the "expert professional prognosticators" who operate behind smoke and mirrors early season and throw out voodoo predictions that folks lap up. Listen to these guys and it sucks the joy out of the season from the almost the gitgo. Seems just such a bizarre landscape to me. (Jeez, reread this and I sound like Jeff Dunham's Walter. So be it.)
And don't get me started on the "expert professional prognosticators" who operate behind smoke and mirrors early season and throw out voodoo predictions that folks lap up. Listen to these guys and it sucks the joy out of the season from the almost the gitgo. Seems just such a bizarre landscape to me. (Jeez, reread this and I sound like Jeff Dunham's Walter. So be it.)
1. If we go 9-9 A-10 and have a good OOC record playing a bad OOC schedule, we don't get an at large.
2. If we go 9-9 A-10 and have a good OOC record playing a good OOC schedule, we don't get an at large.
3. If we go 14-4 A-10 and have a good OOC record playing a bad OOC schedule, we don't get an at large.
4. If we go 14-4 A-10 and have a good OOC record playing a good OOC schedule, we are in the discussion for an at large.
So, only 1 scenario gives us a chance at an at large. Why would you not want to give your team the best chance to reach this scenario? What judgement could you possibly be withholding? Seems pretty clear to me.
I'm not saying I wanted a weak schedule.
suddenly because we're 8-1 some people think we're good and that we would have had an at-large shot if we scheduled harder. I hope you're right, but I'm very doubtful. nothing I've seen has convinced me we're anywhere near at-large good. the schedule hasn't allowed me to consider that. so we'll see.
if I were to guess, I think we're an average A10 team who wouldn't even be talking about at-large chances if we did schedule harder. I'm usually a pretty positive fan, but that's where I'm at. if we start off 3-0 in the A10 I'll start to get excited.
I guess you are saying we are not that good anyway, so who cares how we scheduled OOC.. I am sayjng, whether we end up being good or not, why not schedule appropriately OOC in case we are good and at least give us a chance for an at large instead of eliminating all chances before our 1st game.
We’re going to begin to find out pretty soon how good we really are. Def think more skilled and better chemistry than last year.
As far as why this OOC schedule that has heavy anchor attached to it, I’d like to hear the real reason we scheduled so weak. Not sure we’ve ever gotten a true explanation which may not be what we’ve seen in print. Maybe this schedule builds some quasi confidence, but it gives no favor for NCAA postseason.
Last edited:
not "who cares". just saying if we're not that good, it won't matter how we scheduled OOC.
I'll wait until we're actually good in the A10 before I blame the OOC schedule for us not getting an at-large. if we're not good in the A10, then this schedule simply quieted the complaining for a month.
I'll wait until we're actually good in the A10 before I blame the OOC schedule for us not getting an at-large. if we're not good in the A10, then this schedule simply quieted the complaining for a month.
agreed. the "nobody will play us" line got blown up with JMU's comments.
playing JMU and its 194 KenPom doesn't move the needle.
NET 156 last year and 52 the year before.
not saying they're a power.
but don't cry that "nobody will play us so we have to schedule Southern Virginia, VMI, Garnder Webb, the Citadel and Charleston Southern", when we heard a decent mid major was very willing.
Urmite
Bench player
Why couldn’t 8legger have said this instead. Then we would have ended the season with only two 1 point losses. And one would be the A10 final…
Similar threads
