Alum '04 wrote:

Was really interesting to hear coach discuss how difficult it is for the A-10 teams to get at large bids and what his strategy is for countering this.

That sounds interesting.  For those of us who couldn’t attend, what is his strategy for countering?

Merrick wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

Alum '04 wrote:

Was really interesting to hear coach discuss how difficult it is for the A-10 teams to get at large bids and what his strategy is for countering this.

That sounds interesting. For those of us who couldn’t attend, what is his strategy for countering?

I'm not a NET expert, but here's the headline: A-10 teams need to feast on the weak in pre-conference play to get more bids.

Here's what I recall as the gist--but certainly not verbatim.  And it was more a potential approach as opposed to an absolute roadmap.

1) Power 5 schedules are already filled up with top competition through conference play, P5 inter-conference challenges and neutral site games.
2) P5's looking for buy games to pad records
3) P5's don't want to come Smitty (includes Georgetown) and won't do home and homes.  Might do a 2 and 1.
4) For GW (or other A-10) to be a P5 buy game on the road is not ideal for us.
5) Best opportunities for A-10/GW P-5 matchups are neutral site tourneys.
6) To counter the diminished opportunities for Quad 1/2 wins, all A-10 teams should strive to enter conference play at .750 or above.
7) As an example, if all teams entered at .750, a late year road loss by someone like Dayton (or other top-tier A-10 team to a lesser A-10 opponent might become a Quad 2 loss as opposed to a resume killing Quad 4. 
8) Getting to .750 means less scintillating OOC matchups--but that's the current landscape.

     

This was an excellent summary of what CC said.  What I like about CC Is that he seems not only to coach the team but is actively involved in rebuilding the program beyond the won and loss record.
 

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (8/02/2023 7:07 am)

Agree that what Merrick wrote was an excellent summary.  Although it is obviously self-serving for the Power schools, the discussion among some in the Power 5 (6) to increase the tournament field to 96 (which I hate) might help the A-10 to get two or three extra bids. I wish I had asked CC.

Some player highlights I remember:

* James in great shape.  That and less minutes should help his D.
* Pro scouts told him Zam was one of the best prospects at the FIBA U20.
* Frosh guards:  Jacoi-lead guard, Trey-shooter, Christian-rangy defender.

AT Hiker wrote:

Impressive and informative hour with our excellent coach who speaks clearly  and candidly. Looking forward to the season! (He is open to playing Georgetown at Capitol One if they would agree-- but they won't agree.

Noteworthy that CC pointed out that Gtown would not agree but not for the reasons we might think (i.e. they have nothing to gain, afraid to play us, etc.)  It simply comes down to conferences like the A10 getting squeezed out by the P6 as Merrick summarized.  The unspoken end result to this is that schools like GW have never had worse leverage in scheduling major conference opponents than right now.

So, if we really want this, we are going to have to change our thinking.   Some of us only wanted Gtown on a home-and-home basis.  Some like myself would have given Gtown a 2 for 1 so long as we get that one game in the Smith Center.  I'm ready to give up that demand.  The only way to play Gtown will be to do it at Capital One each and every time.  Maybe we can get 3,000-5,000 seats to sell to our fans some of the time while in other years, we get no allotment of tickets but it's a buy game.  I suspect that Ed Cooley and Chris Caputo can find ways to make this work.  They just won't likely be the way we've wanted it in the past.


 

Maybe GW vs. Ge**getown does not enhance either teams post season prospects.   Viewing the matchup through that prism, perhaps there is nothing to gain by a resumption of a rivalry.  On the other hand, there is much to be said in favor of local rivalries.   It generates excitement, provides exposure and puts fannies in the seats...something both programs can badly use.  Further, perhaps if we were able to demonstrate our ability to compete with or even beat Ge**getown, next time a potential recruit such as Ismael Massoud has to choose between us or them, we would win out.   I hope we keep working on a resumption.

Alum1 wrote:

The one thinking I disagree with Chris on is his approach to OOC scheduling for GW and the A-10 in general. He says that A-10 teams should play basically all cupcakes in OOC schedule with the goal of entering conference play with the highest collective W-L record  possible heading into conference play, with the thought being that it will mean better overall winning percentages by the end of season and a better shot at tournament bids. Maybe that was the case in the ACC where basically half the league or more is a too 75 NET team. The A-10 had one top 75 NET team and more than half were 199 or worse. That strategy might have worked in the A-10, but you go into A-10 conference play with a shitty NET you aren’t helping yourself because you went 10-2 against the likes of Stonehill amd UMES in OOC.

I don’t think he’s saying play all cupcakes. He’s saying play enough teams you can beat to get to .750 (and beat the heck out of them) because that will give us more highly rated NET teams than we’ve had.  Unlike the RPI, you can actually improve your net vs weaker teams if you crush them.

Merrick wrote:

Free Quebec wrote:

Alum1 wrote:

The one thinking I disagree with Chris on is his approach to OOC scheduling for GW and the A-10 in general. He says that A-10 teams should play basically all cupcakes in OOC schedule with the goal of entering conference play with the highest collective W-L record possible heading into conference play, with the thought being that it will mean better overall winning percentages by the end of season and a better shot at tournament bids. Maybe that was the case in the ACC where basically half the league or more is a too 75 NET team. The A-10 had one top 75 NET team and more than half were 199 or worse. That strategy might have worked in the A-10, but you go into A-10 conference play with a shitty NET you aren’t helping yourself because you went 10-2 against the likes of Stonehill amd UMES in OOC.

I don’t think he’s saying play all cupcakes. He’s saying play enough teams you can beat to get to .750 (and beat the heck out of them) because that will give us more highly rated NET teams than we’ve had. Unlike the RPI, you can actually improve your net vs weaker teams if you crush them.

Caputo laid out a possible approach if the P6 scheduling opportunities for mid-majors continued to be squeezed.  It's purely quant thinking and in a free-flowing discussion, he theorized that this may be the way the conference has to go in the future to improve the prospects for A-10 tournament bids.   
 

 
Actually, I’ve heard him articulate it several times going back to last year. He may be right in his view, I was just pointing out that the fundamental weakness of the current day A-10 makes it a much less effective strategy than if you were in the ACC in my view  As to the point that you get rewarded for beating up on cupcakes under the NET system, I’m sure that’s incrementally true, but not to the point where it materially outweighs the fact that you are going to be weighted down by the cumulative stink f bad teams that play in bad conferences. It also assumes that you actually beat up on these teams, and we’ve all seen that movie before.

I certainly agree that it is not realistic to expect P5 schools ro visit GW. In fact, it’s more unlikely than ever, and getting more unlikely by the day given realignment.