(03-12-2018 04:03 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:56 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:42 PM)82hawk Wrote:  Outside auto bids, what is it the NCAA would like in a participant? If you're talking mid majors, it's PROOF they can beat a good P5 team if given the chance. Then they get the "Cinderella" audience opportunity. Otherwise, they'll take the money with a larger audience watching Alabama over UNCW and the fact they have a national presence that will fill a stadium. In the end, it's about the money.

You can't show you can beat a P5 team if you don't play them. Yes it will be on the road, and you won't have a great shot. But it IS a shot. Plus, you can bank some coin while you're at it. And if you have a really good team you can get the upset. Also, there isn't a huge RPI knock if you lose an away game anyhow.

If we can get an agreement, i'd take at least two P5 shots either in a tournament or at an away game and shelve the DII games. Take the cash and a shot at an upset. Be strategic in who you target. You can get a lot of bang for your buck against a Georgia, Alabama, Georgia Tech, Arkansas, Miss. St.. Big names who aren't basketball powerhouses, but look good on paper.

2011 VCU got an at-large with a 20-12 record, 11-6 conference. But, they beat UCLA on the road and Wake Forest. Both in the NIT tipoff. That was it. No other big OOC wins and losses to Tennessee, South Florida, Richmond, Tulane, UAB. So, they were 2-7 in those games, but they played 9 decent OOC teams.

Sure, you can possibly pull that off. However, VCU was still sneaking up on teams without national recognition up until their cinderella run. The CAA knew they were decent/good, but that's about it.

Think about the teams we had the last couple years. I doubt too many majors would have thought that juice was worth the squeeze to schedule us. That's the real predicament the Mids are in. Even if they want to have a schedule like MTSU's... you have to find the P5's that would agree to it. Most P5 teams with Top 25 hopes are going to deny all day, because they know they have enough P5 recognition within their own conference to where they can win and get it done internally. They're not forced to look at 7-9 games a season and pin their post-season hopes on that short span of games at the beginning of the season.

Umm, VCU was 27-9 the year prior, and won the NIT. It was Shaka Smarts first year. They had beaten #17 Oklahoma and lost to ODU in the CAA finals. They didn't surprise anyone. The fact is, P5 schools want to play at home as much as they can, and they have to be careful not to have a bunch of cupcakes OOC either. As long as you aren't scheduling lambs to the slaughter games, it's a low risk high reward opportunity if you can get it. Clemson was actually a good OOC get, they just happened to be on the rise and caught us at the right time.

That's why i'd like to see a few, but not a lot, of those pay to play games. 2-3 is ideal. And UCLA and Oklahoma aren't UNC and Duke. They represent high name value but not high quality programs.

So with UCLA a team that has gone to the tourney and had success they are not a high quality Program? Oklahoma has been up and down but has several deep runs in the last 15 or so years, Tourney almost every year since the century flip how are they not quality? When you compare most to UNC and Duke very few will measure up. But to state they are not high quality programs simply isn't true(or as you like to say "fact based")

He said "high name value but not high quality". I get it. It's a program that has had success, but not currently all that good. Insert similar programs like Syracuse, Wake Forest, etc.

And he was right about VCU. I forgot they won the NIT the year before their Final Four run. Which at the end, basically means you were the 65th best team that year (I believe it was before the "last four in, first four out" nonsense).

(03-12-2018 04:03 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:56 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:42 PM)82hawk Wrote:  Outside auto bids, what is it the NCAA would like in a participant? If you're talking mid majors, it's PROOF they can beat a good P5 team if given the chance. Then they get the "Cinderella" audience opportunity. Otherwise, they'll take the money with a larger audience watching Alabama over UNCW and the fact they have a national presence that will fill a stadium. In the end, it's about the money.

You can't show you can beat a P5 team if you don't play them. Yes it will be on the road, and you won't have a great shot. But it IS a shot. Plus, you can bank some coin while you're at it. And if you have a really good team you can get the upset. Also, there isn't a huge RPI knock if you lose an away game anyhow.

If we can get an agreement, i'd take at least two P5 shots either in a tournament or at an away game and shelve the DII games. Take the cash and a shot at an upset. Be strategic in who you target. You can get a lot of bang for your buck against a Georgia, Alabama, Georgia Tech, Arkansas, Miss. St.. Big names who aren't basketball powerhouses, but look good on paper.

2011 VCU got an at-large with a 20-12 record, 11-6 conference. But, they beat UCLA on the road and Wake Forest. Both in the NIT tipoff. That was it. No other big OOC wins and losses to Tennessee, South Florida, Richmond, Tulane, UAB. So, they were 2-7 in those games, but they played 9 decent OOC teams.

Sure, you can possibly pull that off. However, VCU was still sneaking up on teams without national recognition up until their cinderella run. The CAA knew they were decent/good, but that's about it.

Think about the teams we had the last couple years. I doubt too many majors would have thought that juice was worth the squeeze to schedule us. That's the real predicament the Mids are in. Even if they want to have a schedule like MTSU's... you have to find the P5's that would agree to it. Most P5 teams with Top 25 hopes are going to deny all day, because they know they have enough P5 recognition within their own conference to where they can win and get it done internally. They're not forced to look at 7-9 games a season and pin their post-season hopes on that short span of games at the beginning of the season.

Umm, VCU was 27-9 the year prior, and won the NIT. It was Shaka Smarts first year. They had beaten #17 Oklahoma and lost to ODU in the CAA finals. They didn't surprise anyone. The fact is, P5 schools want to play at home as much as they can, and they have to be careful not to have a bunch of cupcakes OOC either. As long as you aren't scheduling lambs to the slaughter games, it's a low risk high reward opportunity if you can get it. Clemson was actually a good OOC get, they just happened to be on the rise and caught us at the right time.

That's why i'd like to see a few, but not a lot, of those pay to play games. 2-3 is ideal. And UCLA and Oklahoma aren't UNC and Duke. They represent high name value but not high quality programs.

So with UCLA a team that has gone to the tourney and had success they are not a high quality Program? Oklahoma has been up and down but has several deep runs in the last 15 or so years, Tourney almost every year since the century flip how are they not quality? When you compare most to UNC and Duke very few will measure up. But to state they are not high quality programs simply isn't true(or as you like to say "fact based")

UCLA was not a quality program at the time and Oklahoma was good, but not great. Neither are fighting UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky for top 10 recruits. They represent exactly what I was talking about Big names but not unbeatable lambs to the slaughter programs. Even this year OK is coming in as a 10 seed with NCSU as a 9. Obviously when describing big name schools on paper but not top quality, it's an opinion not a fact we are talking about. But, when was the last time UCLA or OK won a national championship compared to the ones I mentioned above?

(03-12-2018 04:14 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:03 PM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:56 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:42 PM)82hawk Wrote:  Outside auto bids, what is it the NCAA would like in a participant? If you're talking mid majors, it's PROOF they can beat a good P5 team if given the chance. Then they get the "Cinderella" audience opportunity. Otherwise, they'll take the money with a larger audience watching Alabama over UNCW and the fact they have a national presence that will fill a stadium. In the end, it's about the money.

You can't show you can beat a P5 team if you don't play them. Yes it will be on the road, and you won't have a great shot. But it IS a shot. Plus, you can bank some coin while you're at it. And if you have a really good team you can get the upset. Also, there isn't a huge RPI knock if you lose an away game anyhow.

If we can get an agreement, i'd take at least two P5 shots either in a tournament or at an away game and shelve the DII games. Take the cash and a shot at an upset. Be strategic in who you target. You can get a lot of bang for your buck against a Georgia, Alabama, Georgia Tech, Arkansas, Miss. St.. Big names who aren't basketball powerhouses, but look good on paper.

2011 VCU got an at-large with a 20-12 record, 11-6 conference. But, they beat UCLA on the road and Wake Forest. Both in the NIT tipoff. That was it. No other big OOC wins and losses to Tennessee, South Florida, Richmond, Tulane, UAB. So, they were 2-7 in those games, but they played 9 decent OOC teams.

Sure, you can possibly pull that off. However, VCU was still sneaking up on teams without national recognition up until their cinderella run. The CAA knew they were decent/good, but that's about it.

Think about the teams we had the last couple years. I doubt too many majors would have thought that juice was worth the squeeze to schedule us. That's the real predicament the Mids are in. Even if they want to have a schedule like MTSU's... you have to find the P5's that would agree to it. Most P5 teams with Top 25 hopes are going to deny all day, because they know they have enough P5 recognition within their own conference to where they can win and get it done internally. They're not forced to look at 7-9 games a season and pin their post-season hopes on that short span of games at the beginning of the season.

Umm, VCU was 27-9 the year prior, and won the NIT. It was Shaka Smarts first year. They had beaten #17 Oklahoma and lost to ODU in the CAA finals. They didn't surprise anyone. The fact is, P5 schools want to play at home as much as they can, and they have to be careful not to have a bunch of cupcakes OOC either. As long as you aren't scheduling lambs to the slaughter games, it's a low risk high reward opportunity if you can get it. Clemson was actually a good OOC get, they just happened to be on the rise and caught us at the right time.

That's why i'd like to see a few, but not a lot, of those pay to play games. 2-3 is ideal. And UCLA and Oklahoma aren't UNC and Duke. They represent high name value but not high quality programs.

So with UCLA a team that has gone to the tourney and had success they are not a high quality Program? Oklahoma has been up and down but has several deep runs in the last 15 or so years, Tourney almost every year since the century flip how are they not quality? When you compare most to UNC and Duke very few will measure up. But to state they are not high quality programs simply isn't true(or as you like to say "fact based")

UCLA was not a quality program at the time and Oklahoma was good, but not great. Neither are fighting UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky for top 10 recruits. They represent exactly what I was talking about Big names but not unbeatable lambs to the slaughter programs. Even this year OK is coming in as a 10 seed with NCSU as a 9. Obviously when describing big name schools on paper but not top quality, it's an opinion not a fact we are talking about. But, when was the last time UCLA or OK won a national championship compared to the ones I mentioned above?

Oklahoma crapped the bed this year. And if you compare just about any school to the ones you mentioned they won't measure up. Year before last UCLA had 2 top 20 recruits. UCLA had as many top 20 recruits as KU this past year, 1. I'm not saying either is Duke or UNC, who is? But they are certainly top quality programs. It's not opinion when the facts support them being a top quality program, both probably in the next tier right after the ones you mentioned

It's really not hard to get. There are nationally recognized names that look good on paper to play, but don't represent teams that will overwhelm you with unbeatable size and talent.

If I could make the schedule, i'd target some of the SEC teams that everyone knows. Good travel distance and winnable games. Not likely to draw big, passionate crowds when we go there. Get an upset here or there and a good conference schedule and you have a chance. LSU game was a great example this year. Big name, but we played them well despite being a below par team. The CofC fans are feeling good about taking on SEC powerhouse Auburn for the exact reasons I stated. Big name but not a great program. No incredibly gifted big men that can dominate a mid major.

Those are the teams I would target. On the plus side, we could possibly get some home and homes on the baseball side since we have a good baseball reputation.

(03-12-2018 04:30 PM)82hawk Wrote:  It's really not hard to get. There are nationally recognized names that look good on paper to play, but don't represent teams that will overwhelm you with unbeatable size and talent.

If I could make the schedule, i'd target some of the SEC teams that everyone knows. Good travel distance and winnable games. Not likely to draw big, passionate crowds when we go there. Get an upset here or there and a good conference schedule and you have a chance. LSU game was a great example this year. Big name, but we played them well despite being a below par team. The CofC fans are feeling good about taking on SEC powerhouse Auburn for the exact reasons I stated. Big name but not a great program. No incredibly gifted big men that can dominate a mid major.

Those are the teams I would target. On the plus side, we could possibly get some home and homes on the baseball side since we have a good baseball reputation.

LOL This is first year Auburn has a good team in quite some time. So Auburn i completely agree with. But Auburn hoops to UCLA and Oklahoma is apples to oranges. I get what you are saying you just used two bad examples.

(03-12-2018 04:30 PM)82hawk Wrote:  It's really not hard to get. There are nationally recognized names that look good on paper to play, but don't represent teams that will overwhelm you with unbeatable size and talent.

Heck, we're not even trying - and neither are most of the rest of the conference teams. Everyone instead is scheduling DII and DIII teams. Those "W"s are fooling exactly no one - except maybe the people scheduling them in the first place....

(03-12-2018 08:40 PM)70shawk Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:30 PM)82hawk Wrote:  It's really not hard to get. There are nationally recognized names that look good on paper to play, but don't represent teams that will overwhelm you with unbeatable size and talent.

Heck, we're not even trying - and neither are most of the rest of the conference teams. Everyone instead is scheduling DII and DIII teams. Those "W"s are fooling exactly no one - except maybe the people scheduling them in the first place....

That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

(03-13-2018 05:46 AM)82hawk Wrote:  That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

I am by no means a Keatts basher - he did remarkable things in his three years here. But, again, last years team would not have been at at large NCAA pick EVEN WITH 28 WINS! Keatts talked about how nervous he was before the CAA title game, and he should have been because he knew we weren't going to the big dance because we hadn't beaten anyone .

Trust me - the NCAA doesn't think nearly as highly of Claflin as I do...

(03-13-2018 09:58 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:46 AM)82hawk Wrote:  That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

Trust me - the NCAA doesn't think nearly as highly of Claflin as I do...

Are you sure?

(03-13-2018 10:00 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:58 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:46 AM)82hawk Wrote:  That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

Trust me - the NCAA doesn't think nearly as highly of Claflin as I do...

Are you sure?

You may be right. They probably take 2 Claflin to clear up their headaches when teams ***** that they aren't getting enough respect for their victories over DIII teams...

Don't take Claflin after an NCAA snub. It doesn't work and your Dr. C Lection will just lecture you

(03-12-2018 01:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I see that point too. ST Mary's got left out b/c their OOC sucked despite a gaudy record. But MTSU also got left out despite being competitive in virtually all of their games and having a great record as well.

That is literally a lose lose situation. Do what St Mary's did, no bid. Do what MTSU did, no bid.

What would MTSU have had to do differently to get an at large bid? 1,2, or 3 of the those 3 non P5 games? We are pretty close to requiring mid majors to be perfect, minus a conference tournament championship, to get an at large bid

The answer is win. Win 1 of those 3 tournament games and I bet they are a real consideration. In the end you still have to beat top tier teams, not just play them.

As far as scheduling, that was something Bruiser did very well regardless of the team we had. He typically tried to have 1-2 buy games on the road to give the team a chance at marquee wins which helped the SOS etc. Now when we were truly contenders it was more difficult than when we were a middling CAA team, but it can be done. It is important if you aspire to get to the NCAA to get in good early season tournaments or swallow your pride and go on the road for 1-2 games a year and take a pay check and hope you can steal a win. That is how you get the numbers for consideration and ultimately a bid. Yes it is difficult and you have to be nearly perfect, but that is the reality in a money driven ordeal that is the NCAA tournament.

(03-13-2018 10:47 AM)dan10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I see that point too. ST Mary's got left out b/c their OOC sucked despite a gaudy record. But MTSU also got left out despite being competitive in virtually all of their games and having a great record as well.

That is literally a lose lose situation. Do what St Mary's did, no bid. Do what MTSU did, no bid.

What would MTSU have had to do differently to get an at large bid? 1,2, or 3 of the those 3 non P5 games? We are pretty close to requiring mid majors to be perfect, minus a conference tournament championship, to get an at large bid

The answer is win. Win 1 of those 3 tournament games and I bet they are a real consideration. In the end you still have to beat top tier teams, not just play them.

As far as scheduling, that was something Bruiser did very well regardless of the team we had. He typically tried to have 1-2 buy games on the road to give the team a chance at marquee wins which helped the SOS etc. Now when we were truly contenders it was more difficult than when we were a middling CAA team, but it can be done. It is important if you aspire to get to the NCAA to get in good early season tournaments or swallow your pride and go on the road for 1-2 games a year and take a pay check and hope you can steal a win. That is how you get the numbers for consideration and ultimately a bid. Yes it is difficult and you have to be nearly perfect, but that is the reality in a money driven ordeal that is the NCAA tournament.

Exactly, their is no room for error for a midmajor due to so few, if any, power game opportunities.

(03-13-2018 09:58 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:46 AM)82hawk Wrote:  That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

I am by no means a Keatts basher - he did remarkable things in his three years here. But, again, last years team would not have been at at large NCAA pick EVEN WITH 28 WINS! Keatts talked about how nervous he was before the CAA title game, and he should have been because he knew we weren't going to the big dance because we hadn't beaten anyone .

Trust me - the NCAA doesn't think nearly as highly of Claflin as I do...

Agree 100%. I don't think it was the right strategy in terms of getting an at-large bid. He did it for other reasons.

(03-13-2018 12:29 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:58 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 05:46 AM)82hawk Wrote:  That was a Keatts strategy. Let's see if McGrath changes it up.

I am by no means a Keatts basher - he did remarkable things in his three years here. But, again, last years team would not have been at at large NCAA pick EVEN WITH 28 WINS! Keatts talked about how nervous he was before the CAA title game, and he should have been because he knew we weren't going to the big dance because we hadn't beaten anyone .

Trust me - the NCAA doesn't think nearly as highly of Claflin as I do...

Agree 100%. I don't think it was the right strategy in terms of getting an at-large bid. He did it for other reasons.

To pad his win total to look better for HIM

It's also possible that mid-late December is a good time not to play a D-I team. That's a time of the year when your guys need a little bit of a break. Even in our best years, we've lost some games we shouldn't have around that time of the season.

What comes to mind for me is the 2005-06 season, when we started the season 9-3 against a brutal schedule. We then played a 4-6 ECU team on the road on New Year's Eve, and they beat us 82-69. That was their Super Bowl (as it usually is against us).

In that situation, I wouldn't have minded playing a non-DI home game just as conference play was getting started. Granted, it all worked out very well for us, as we won 25 games, the CAA title, and got a 9-seed. But I can also see the justification for slipping in a game where you can rest your starters, at the tail end of non-conference play.

I don't like it much. And I would say that if you do schedule multiple non-DI games, you need to balance it with some difficult neutral/road games so you have opportunities to get marquee wins. But I don't really buy the argument that it kills your resume, as long as you win some of the tough ones too. In the latter 2 seasons of the brief Keatts era, we needed to beat Georgetown in 2015 and Clemson in 2016 in order to earn an at-large resume. We didn't, so we weren't in either season. And that's how these things work for mid-majors.

(03-13-2018 12:58 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  But I don't really buy the argument that it kills your resume, as long as you win some of the tough ones too. In the latter 2 seasons of the brief Keatts era, we needed to beat Georgetown in 2015 and Clemson in 2016 in order to earn an at-large resume. We didn't, so we weren't in either season. And that's how these things work for mid-majors.

Most of the analytics that are used to determine RPI SOS etc all don't factor in D2 & 3 games one way or the other.

(03-13-2018 12:58 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  It's also possible that mid-late December is a good time not to play a D-I team. That's a time of the year when your guys need a little bit of a break. Even in our best years, we've lost some games we shouldn't have around that time of the season.

What comes to mind for me is the 2005-06 season, when we started the season 9-3 against a brutal schedule. We then played a 4-6 ECU team on the road on New Year's Eve, and they beat us 82-69. That was their Super Bowl (as it usually is against us).

In that situation, I wouldn't have minded playing a non-DI home game just as conference play was getting started. Granted, it all worked out very well for us, as we won 25 games, the CAA title, and got a 9-seed. But I can also see the justification for slipping in a game where you can rest your starters, at the tail end of non-conference play.

I don't like it much. And I would say that if you do schedule multiple non-DI games, you need to balance it with some difficult neutral/road games so you have opportunities to get marquee wins. But I don't really buy the argument that it kills your resume, as long as you win some of the tough ones too. In the latter 2 seasons of the brief Keatts era, we needed to beat Georgetown in 2015 and Clemson in 2016 in order to earn an at-large resume. We didn't, so we weren't in either season. And that's how these things work for mid-majors.

Agreed. The key is you have to have the wins to prop up doing so. You can hide negatives if you have enough positives. But when you lack the big positives then the negatives become glaring.

We have been talking through this topic on our board as well. Basically, we all pull for each other in November and December each year before then returning to our fan bases for the conference season. The CAA needs a major nonconference scheduling upgrade. There was a time when ODU, VCU and Mason were in the league that we got multiple bids, but there hasn't been one since 2011(VCU and Mason got in that year with champ ODU). So, one of the last 2 at large bids went to the final four. Contrast that with the A10 that gets multiple at large bids every year. All of the 10 programs need to commit with encouragement from the league office to multiple tough OOC games. Some are gained through early season tournaments, but some have to be just road scheduling. Pretty much each year, the Tribe schedules 3 tough OOC games. This year, we had UCF, TCU and Ohio State(we lost all 3, but came close against TCU). Last season, we had Louisville, Duke and Rhode Island, 2016- Virginia, NC State and Dayton. So, basically 3 games each year. Our OOC SOS was in the 20's and 30's. Granted, the Tribe did not win many of those games(we did beat NC State), but each year we have been competitive in at least one. The nonconference has got to be upgraded, including the possibility of a challenge with another highly regarded league(A10?). It would be great to get some more games with the A10. Mason played us this year and we also got 2 games with ODU and Marshall(Conference USA). But, at a base level, there should be at least 30 nonconference games against quality opposition on the road or on neutral courts. That is only 3 per team. Then, a fair number of games need to be won. That, plus some wins in the tournament by our representatives will help us a little. But, clearly, the P5 conferences would prefer to further relegate the mid-majors to play in rounds and auto bids only. If they expanded the tournament, I firmly believe we would either see even more p5 teams, or all the mids in the early play extra round. But in 18-19, I expect several CAA teams to be really really good. So, it is time for some aggressive scheduling. It is tough though when teams won't play you. VCU and Richmond refuse to play the Tribe(and never at Kaplan). You would think UNCW could get Clemson, Wake Forest, State, or UNC without too much trouble. Drexel should be able to get St Joe's or Villanova. Yet none of these games are happening.

(03-13-2018 03:01 PM)TribePride91 Wrote:  We have been talking through this topic on our board as well. Basically, we all pull for each other in November and December each year before then returning to our fan bases for the conference season. The CAA needs a major nonconference scheduling upgrade. There was a time when ODU, VCU and Mason were in the league that we got multiple bids, but there hasn't been one since 2011(VCU and Mason got in that year with champ ODU). So, one of the last 2 at large bids went to the final four. Contrast that with the A10 that gets multiple at large bids every year. All of the 10 programs need to commit with encouragement from the league office to multiple tough OOC games. Some are gained through early season tournaments, but some have to be just road scheduling. Pretty much each year, the Tribe schedules 3 tough OOC games. This year, we had UCF, TCU and Ohio State(we lost all 3, but came close against TCU). Last season, we had Louisville, Duke and Rhode Island, 2016- Virginia, NC State and Dayton. So, basically 3 games each year. Our OOC SOS was in the 20's and 30's. Granted, the Tribe did not win many of those games(we did beat NC State), but each year we have been competitive in at least one. The nonconference has got to be upgraded, including the possibility of a challenge with another highly regarded league(A10?). It would be great to get some more games with the A10. Mason played us this year and we also got 2 games with ODU and Marshall(Conference USA). But, at a base level, there should be at least 30 nonconference games against quality opposition on the road or on neutral courts. That is only 3 per team. Then, a fair number of games need to be won. That, plus some wins in the tournament by our representatives will help us a little. But, clearly, the P5 conferences would prefer to further relegate the mid-majors to play in rounds and auto bids only. If they expanded the tournament, I firmly believe we would either see even more p5 teams, or all the mids in the early play extra round. But in 18-19, I expect several CAA teams to be really really good. So, it is time for some aggressive scheduling. It is tough though when teams won't play you. VCU and Richmond refuse to play the Tribe(and never at Kaplan). You would think UNCW could get Clemson, Wake Forest, State, or UNC without too much trouble. Drexel should be able to get St Joe's or Villanova. Yet none of these games are happening.

I like the challenge idea with the A10 alot...