Around the A10 20-21 season

[CBFan]

22 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

I will watch the NIT.  Do you consider this prepping for next year?  If so, who do you play?

Yes, play Bell a lot.  I want to see the rabbits run too, Hargrove and Strickland.

I don't want to see the team come out uptight just let it fly and have a good time.

 

[wgstl]

3 minutes ago, CBFan said:

Yes, play Bell a lot.  I want to see the rabbits run too, Hargrove and Strickland.

I don't want to see the team come out uptight just let it fly and have a good time.

 

I see people post this a lot, especially when talking about accepting a NIT or CBI(not this year of course) bid.  I know we want to see the young guys get a chance, and I hope we do, but French and Goodwin aren't playing in this to waste time, they want to win.  I don't see the minutes changing at all just because of it being the NIT. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

3 hours ago, CBFan said:

I cannot disagree with your points, I love the Billikens but I am honest about the results.

They should have played a practice game before taking on Dayton.

The 2 blow out losses to Dayton and the Bonnies cost SLU the NCAA tournament.

The loss to LaSalle hurt as well.

To be a NCAA tournament team they had to beat Dayton once and beat a boneless VCU team and they did not.

I have no argument with the selection committee not selecting the Billikens.

I hope you watch the NIT.  French and Goodwin got SLU to the NCAA tournament with a wonderful A10 sweep.  Last season I believe if they made it to the A10 tournament championship SLU would have gotten selected.  Those two players accomplished a lot and I look forward to to seeing them play on Saturday.

I think your points as to why SLU was didn't make the NCAA are largely correct.  I think SLU flunked the Committee's subjective eye test.  Objectively per the metric used, SLU should have been IN.

However, SLU was still snubbed.  The NCAA field followed the NET to the button, 100% for 35 of the first 37 at large bids.  The two variances occurred because (1) Room had to be made for Michigan State (NET 70, 9-12 Big Ten including B10 Tourney) as the 9th Big Ten team.  That NCAA Unit is simply worth too much money, $1.8 to $1.9 Million;  (2) a second AAC team (72 Wichita State) had to be slotted because each conference in the Group of 4 (WCC, A10, MVC, and Mountain West) each received 2 bids, and the 7th conference ranked AAC was not going to receive only 1 bid.

Someone had to go to make room.  Regrettably, SLU was excised, despite its easily NCAA qualifying NET of 43.

In fact, the picking was so skewed against SLU that SLU was only the 3rd team OUT, despite having a significantly better NET than 56 Louisville and 51 Colorado State.

I do not accept the snub of SLU, not with its NET of 43, kenpom ranking of 47, and ESPN BPI ranking of 37.  Why have the NET metric if it is going to be ignored when it comes down to the nitty gritty?  Why have a ridiculous Power 5 exception for a Big Ten also ran like Michigan State?  In advance, I'm well aware of the claimed justifications of Michigan State winning 3 top level games late (all at home), or its 5 Quad 1 wins.  Michigan State was 5-11 in Quad 1, .3125.  Those faux justifications are rejected here. Michigan State is IN for one reason:  Follow the money.

I will watch SLU play in the NIT, and am looking forward to seeing the Billikens play some more ball in '21.  

[Clock_Tower]

3 hours ago, CBFan said:

I cannot disagree with your points, I love the Billikens but I am honest about the results.

They should have played a practice game before taking on Dayton.

The 2 blow out losses to Dayton and the Bonnies cost SLU the NCAA tournament.

The loss to LaSalle hurt as well.

To be a NCAA tournament team they had to beat Dayton once and beat a boneless VCU team and they did not.

I have no argument with the selection committee not selecting the Billikens.

I hope you watch the NIT.  French and Goodwin got SLU to the NCAA tournament with a wonderful A10 sweep.  Last season I believe if they made it to the A10 tournament championship SLU would have gotten selected.  Those two players accomplished a lot and I look forward to to seeing them play on Saturday.

Agree about the blowout losses.   And think you are being kind as to the LaSalle loss which also was a blowout loss.   No real argument from me either as to the selection committee.  We failed on the basketball court and our leadership at SLU and the A10 also failed the kids.  Tough to survive both - but we nearly did.

The handling of the entire season, IMO, was shameful.  French and Goodwin (and Perkins and the others) deserved better. And I, like most, will be watching and pulling for them.

I have questions about Coach Ford and his son's 21st Birthday party -- not good.  I question why we missed 30 days and did not practice.  If the entire league shut down, then fine, but when the others are playing, strict COVID protocols greatly hurt - and how effective they really were is another story.   They were greatly effective, though, in killing our team's chances this year.  And I would like to really know what happened in Richmond.   Had SLU handled the other aspects better, I would be more inclined to believe SLU.   I want to believe SLU but right now, I don't.  I am from Missouri:  show me.   Yes, a practice game would be fine.   But how about some help  from the A10 as well.   Again, the Valley stepped in and changed their whole format.   The SEC in football changed opponents each weeks for the whole league depending upon COVID outbreaks.   The A10?  crickets... until it shut the season down a week prior, we missed 2 important games and made us sit and wait along with the lesser conferences while the better conferences had their day in the sun.   The rest of the country thinks we are no different then the Valley - and our A10 Commish made us look that way too.  Again, why could we not play our 2 games AFTER losing to St. Bona?  All teams other than VCU and St. Bona had a week off and could have played each other.  

Who said to Coach Ford, yeah, renting out a bar for your 21 year old son during a pandemic when you are the high profile coach and employee of the University?  Who said the odds of playing one (1) more game - the A10 final a week later - would increase the risk of COVID so much that the loss of 2 games would be worth it?  Who said to the A10 Commish, yeah, playing less games and the optics of playing when the lesser conferences do is a good idea as well?  This is not rocket science.  Grab 10 random people off the street and you would get better advice.

[Clock_Tower]

3 hours ago, CBFan said:

I cannot disagree with your points, I love the Billikens but I am honest about the results.

They should have played a practice game before taking on Dayton.

The 2 blow out losses to Dayton and the Bonnies cost SLU the NCAA tournament.

The loss to LaSalle hurt as well.

To be a NCAA tournament team they had to beat Dayton once and beat a boneless VCU team and they did not.

I have no argument with the selection committee not selecting the Billikens.

I hope you watch the NIT.  French and Goodwin got SLU to the NCAA tournament with a wonderful A10 sweep.  Last season I believe if they made it to the A10 tournament championship SLU would have gotten selected.  Those two players accomplished a lot and I look forward to to seeing them play on Saturday.

Agree about the blowout losses.   And think you are being kind as to the LaSalle loss which also was a blowout loss.   No real argument from me either as to the selection committee.  We failed on the basketball court and our leadership at SLU and the A10 also failed the kids.  Tough to survive both - but we nearly did.

The handling of the entire season, IMO, was shameful.  French and Goodwin (and Perkins and the others) deserved better. And I, like most, will be watching and pulling for them.

I have questions about Coach Ford and his son's 21st Birthday party -- not good.  I question why we missed 30 days and did not practice.  If the entire league shut down, then fine, but when the others are playing, strict COVID protocols greatly hurt - and how effective they really were is another story.   They were greatly effective, though, in killing our team's chances this year.  And I would like to really know what happened in Richmond.   Had SLU handled the other aspects better, I would be more inclined to believe SLU.   I want to believe SLU but right now, I don't.  I am from Missouri:  show me.   Yes, a practice game would be fine.   But how about some help  from the A10 as well.   Again, the Valley stepped in and changed their whole format.   The SEC in football changed opponents each weeks for the whole league depending upon COVID outbreaks.   The A10?  crickets... until it shut the season down a week prior, we missed 2 important games and made us sit and wait along with the lesser conferences while the better conferences had their day in the sun.   The rest of the country thinks we are no different then the Valley - and our A10 Commish made us look that way too.  Again, why could we not play our 2 games AFTER losing to St. Bona?  All teams other than VCU and St. Bona had a week off and could have played each other.  

Who said to Coach Ford, yeah, renting out a bar for your 21 year old son during a pandemic when you are the high profile coach and employee of the University?  Who said the odds of playing one (1) more game - the A10 final a week later - would increase the risk of COVID so much that the loss of 2 games would be worth it?  Who said to the A10 Commish, yeah, playing less games and the optics of playing when the lesser conferences do is a good idea as well?  This is not rocket science.  Grab 10 random people off the street and you would get better advice.

[HoosierPal]

35 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I see people post this a lot, especially when talking about accepting a NIT or CBI(not this year of course) bid.  I know we want to see the young guys get a chance, and I hope we do, but French and Goodwin aren't playing in this to waste time, they want to win.  I don't see the minutes changing at all just because of it being the NIT. 

I agree. Ride the seniors.  We will lose a few of the underclassmen in the portal, so why change the rotation now. 

[Clock_Tower]

23 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

I think your points as to why SLU was didn't make the NCAA are largely correct.  I think SLU flunked the Committee's subjective eye test.  Objectively per the metric used, SLU should have been IN.

However, SLU was still snubbed.  The NCAA field followed the NET to the button, 100% for 35 of the first 37 at large bids.  The two variances occurred because (1) Room had to be made for Michigan State (NET 70, 9-12 Big Ten including B10 Tourney) as the 9th Big Ten team.  That NCAA Unit is simply worth too much money, $1.8 to $1.9 Million;  (2) a second AAC team (72 Wichita State) had to be slotted because each conference in the Group of 4 (WCC, A10, MVC, and Mountain West) each received 2 bids, and the 7th conference ranked AAC was not going to receive only 1 bid.

Someone had to go to make room.  Regrettably, SLU was excised, despite its easily NCAA qualifying NET of 43.

In fact, the picking was so skewed against SLU that SLU was only the 3rd team OUT, despite having a significantly better NET than 56 Louisville and 51 Colorado State.

I do not accept the snub of SLU, not with its NET of 43, kenpom ranking of 47, and ESPN BPI ranking of 37.  Why have the NET metric if it is going to be ignored when it comes down to the nitty gritty?  Why have a ridiculous Power 5 exception for a Big Ten also ran like Michigan State?  In advance, I'm well aware of the claimed justifications of Michigan State winning 3 top level games late (all at home), or its 5 Quad 1 wins.  Michigan State was 5-11 in Quad 1, .3125.  Those faux justifications are rejected here. Michigan State is IN for one reason:  Follow the money.

I will watch SLU play in the NIT, and am looking forward to seeing the Billikens play some more ball in '21.  

Yes.  All good arguments... but 4 of our 6 losses were blowouts.  And were down the stretch.   Our good wins which made up the 43 NET were pre-COVID pause.  The Committee was likely unsure as to why the losses and why blowouts.  And, coupled with a smaller body of work, the lack of a name school and our conference affiliation -- the Committee clearly did not follow their own system.   I suspect the Committee would say, as with all systems, there is always human over-ride if the system produces an outlier result.

[Bay Area Billiken]

49 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Yes.  All good arguments... but 4 of our 6 losses were blowouts.  And were down the stretch.   Our good wins which made up the 43 NET were pre-COVID pause.  The Committee was likely unsure as to why the losses and why blowouts.  And, coupled with a smaller body of work, the lack of a name school and our conference affiliation -- the Committee clearly did not follow their own system.   I suspect the Committee would say, as with all systems, there is always human over-ride if the system produces an outlier result.

Jerry Palm, if he is correct, kept citing SLU's lack of quality road wins.  A chief explanation, quite possibly disregarded by the Committee, was the Covid quarantine cost SLU 6 games, 4 of which were never made up.  The @UMass road game was not played.  While the St. Bona home game was rescheduled, the @St. Bona road game, which was TBA, was never rescheduled.  That's where the ridiculous A10 decision to advance its Tournament a week comes into play.  That ill fated decision, even if well intentioned at the time, cost SLU 2 games, 1 of which would have likely been a key road game, quite possibly, even likely at St. Bona.  So the A10, concerned about an additional Covid related quarantine, played a key role in the excision of a 3rd A10 bid.

As is, let's not forget the stellar work of Ted "TV" Valentine, who handed a key road game to VCU.  If SLU wins that game, which was very possible given the amount of time on that clock and SLU racing down the court, the claim of no quality road win disappears.

The bottom line is when you are outside the Power 5 and have not won your conference tournament, you are at the mercy of that NCAA Committee.  I was hardly surprised at what happened.  I pretty much knew SLU was toast early in the Selection Show when that Drake vs. Wichita State play in game appeared on the screen.

NET 43, who cares says the Committee?  They needed to get in the 9th Big Ten team, come hell or high water.  And they needed room for the 2nd AAC team, didn't want to upset that apple cart.  The Committee can always find something if it wants to look.  It knew its end;  it merely had to find its means.  It did.

[Bay Area Billiken]

And then there's the case of Drake, NET 45, 2 spots below SLU, meaning SLU had the better objective metric. There's Drake, whose non-conference schedule, whose tour of the Summit League, uniting of the Dakotas, gave new meaning to cupcake and cream puff.

So the NCAA says play a good non-conference schedule.  SLU played LSU, NC State and @ Minnesota.  Drake?  No.

By this new "Drake Test," will SLU in '21-'22 "Drake up" its schedule to compete?  SLU can schedule a home and home with SEMO, host NAIA Culver-Stockton and D-2 UMSL.  After all, Drake played South Dakota twice, North Dakota, Nebraska-Omaha, Chicago State, a lousy Kansas State team, Air Force, along with NAIA St. Ambrose, and D-2 McKendree.  Then Drake played in all those cataclysmic struggles in the Missouri Valley Conference.

The only good team Drake played all season was Loyola Chicago, to whom Drake lost by 27 points on its home court and 10 points on a neutral court, and won at home by 1 in Overtime.

Then Drake received a gift from the City of St. Louis and Missouri Valley Conference, not having to play the MVC Quarterfinal vs. UNI.

Drake received an NCAA At Large, gets the $1.8-$1.9 Million NCAA Unit per game played.  SLU is a #1 Seed in the NIT.  There's something wrong with that comparison.

[CenHudDude]

41 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

And then there's the case of Drake, NET 45, 2 spots below SLU, meaning SLU had the better objective metric. There's Drake, whose non-conference schedule, whose tour of the Summit League, uniting of the Dakotas, gave new meaning to cupcake and cream puff.

So the NCAA says play a good non-conference schedule.  SLU played LSU, NC State and @ Minnesota.  Drake?  No.

By this new "Drake Test," will SLU in '21-'22 "Drake up" its schedule to compete?  SLU can schedule a home and home with SEMO, host NAIA Culver-Stockton and D-2 UMSL.  After all, Drake played South Dakota twice, North Dakota, Nebraska-Omaha, Chicago State, a lousy Kansas State team, Air Force, along with NAIA St. Ambrose, and D-2 McKendree.  Then Drake played in all those cataclysmic struggles in the Missouri Valley Conference.

The only good team Drake played all season was Loyola Chicago, to whom Drake lost by 27 points on its home court and 10 points on a neutral court, and won at home by 1 in Overtime.

Then Drake received a gift from the City of St. Louis and Missouri Valley Conference, not having to play the MVC Quarterfinal vs. UNI.

Drake received an NCAA At Large, gets the $1.8-$1.9 Million NCAA Unit per game played.  SLU is a #1 Seed in the NIT.  There's something wrong with that comparison.

Do schools get any money per game or per win playing in the NIT?

[BilliesBy40]

6 minutes ago, CenHudDude said:

Do schools get any money per game or per win playing in the NIT?

Per game

[CBFan]

3 hours ago, wgstl said:

I see people post this a lot, especially when talking about accepting a NIT or CBI(not this year of course) bid.  I know we want to see the young guys get a chance, and I hope we do, but French and Goodwin aren't playing in this to waste time, they want to win.  I don't see the minutes changing at all just because of it being the NIT. 

Not wanting to waste anyone’s time Goodwin and French will be my all time Billiken favorites.  I want the Billikens to win the NIT.

[slusam]

Richmond struggling without Francis and Golden

[HoosierPal]

49 minutes ago, slusam said:

Richmond struggling without Francis and Golden

Wow, pretty rough when your top two scorers aren't playing. 

[Clock_Tower]

2 hours ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

And then there's the case of Drake, NET 45, 2 spots below SLU, meaning SLU had the better objective metric. There's Drake, whose non-conference schedule, whose tour of the Summit League, uniting of the Dakotas, gave new meaning to cupcake and cream puff.

So the NCAA says play a good non-conference schedule.  SLU played LSU, NC State and @ Minnesota.  Drake?  No.

By this new "Drake Test," will SLU in '21-'22 "Drake up" its schedule to compete?  SLU can schedule a home and home with SEMO, host NAIA Culver-Stockton and D-2 UMSL.  After all, Drake played South Dakota twice, North Dakota, Nebraska-Omaha, Chicago State, a lousy Kansas State team, Air Force, along with NAIA St. Ambrose, and D-2 McKendree.  Then Drake played in all those cataclysmic struggles in the Missouri Valley Conference.

The only good team Drake played all season was Loyola Chicago, to whom Drake lost by 27 points on its home court and 10 points on a neutral court, and won at home by 1 in Overtime.

Then Drake received a gift from the City of St. Louis and Missouri Valley Conference, not having to play the MVC Quarterfinal vs. UNI.

Drake received an NCAA At Large, gets the $1.8-$1.9 Million NCAA Unit per game played.  SLU is a #1 Seed in the NIT.  There's something wrong with that comparison.

Yes. Again all true. No argument from me. And you wrote your points very persuasively too!  Well done. 
But we went 1-1 in our A10 Tournament, were blown out and were never in the game. The A10 is not the best or worst league but when you don’t make your league’s final game - and get blown away in the process... its hard to look away. And then you look away and see see the loss to VCU after getting blown out by UD and you look at the next team.
And at the end of the day, the NCAA Champion is not affected by the last 4 out of the Tournament. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

28 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

...
And at the end of the day, the NCAA Champion is not affected by the last 4 out of the Tournament. 

While that's probably true, the First 4 OUT do not share in the riches, the $1.8-$1.9 Million per game played in the NCAA.

My past understanding is an NIT participant breaks even.  I don't know what happens since the NCAA took over the NIT.  There also may be a difference due to the pandemic, no on campus home games.  But I don't know there either.

[HoosierPal]

Richmond's Grant Golden to have surgery on his left hand.  Tough way to go out.  Great second half comeback by the Spiders.  Started down two main players and then two more fouled out.

[Clock_Tower]

11 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

While that's probably true, the First 4 OUT do not share in the riches, the $1.8-$1.9 Million per game played in the NCAA.

My past understanding is an NIT participant breaks even.  I don't know what happens since the NCAA took over the NIT.  There also may be a difference due to the pandemic, no on campus home games.  But I don't know there either.

Yep. 
Just waiting for 1st round games to pay less. Shift the money to weight the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games even more than they already do.