(03-04-2024 06:09 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  This is old data from 2020-2021.

I'd suspect the budgets in 2024 are quite different.

The 22-23 data will be released soon enough, but my fear is that nothing has changed. I haven't seen the collective effort that Gill urged for. Many SBC ADs seem content with the status-quo toward basketball.

(03-05-2024 04:38 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 06:09 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  This is old data from 2020-2021.

I'd suspect the budgets in 2024 are quite different.

The 22-23 data will be released soon enough, but my fear is that nothing has changed. I haven't seen the collective effort that Gill urged for. Many SBC ADs seem content with the status-quo toward basketball.

The new schools will push the avg up a bit, no idea if existing schools actually increased investments.

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

(03-05-2024 06:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

?

How does that help us in basketball?

(03-05-2024 04:46 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:38 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 06:09 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  This is old data from 2020-2021.

I'd suspect the budgets in 2024 are quite different.

The 22-23 data will be released soon enough, but my fear is that nothing has changed. I haven't seen the collective effort that Gill urged for. Many SBC ADs seem content with the status-quo toward basketball.

The new schools will push the avg up a bit, no idea if existing schools actually increased investments.

Well, ODU and JMU should help. Eastern teams do lead in basketball expanses for whatever reason. Don't ask me why.

(03-05-2024 06:48 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

?

How does that help us in basketball?

Call me crazy, but I’d imagine their investment in basketball might be affected if they were to start running football programs and had to add the other additional sports required to meet FBS guidelines.

Comparing what we do with what schools with only one major sport do is unfair & unreasonable. We’d all be spending more on hoops if it was all we had.

(03-05-2024 07:32 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:48 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

?

How does that help us in basketball?

Call me crazy, but I’d imagine their investment in basketball might be affected if they were to start running football programs and had to add the other additional sports required to meet FBS guidelines.

Comparing what we do with what schools with only one major sport do is unfair & unreasonable. We’d all be spending more on hoops if it was all we had.

Okay, then lets compare the SBC to the MWC or AAC. Or, gasp, CUSA.

(03-05-2024 07:32 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:48 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

?

How does that help us in basketball?

Call me crazy, but I’d imagine their investment in basketball might be affected if they were to start running football programs and had to add the other additional sports required to meet FBS guidelines.

Comparing what we do with what schools with only one major sport do is unfair & unreasonable. We’d all be spending more on hoops if it was all we had.

Right, but the question at hand is "what does it take for SBC to become multi-bid league?" I'm pointing out roughly what it takes.

(03-05-2024 08:09 PM)Dukes_Royals Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 07:32 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:48 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 06:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

Well, we can start making those comparisons right after the A10 & WCC start playing FBS football.

?

How does that help us in basketball?

Call me crazy, but I’d imagine their investment in basketball might be affected if they were to start running football programs and had to add the other additional sports required to meet FBS guidelines.

Comparing what we do with what schools with only one major sport do is unfair & unreasonable. We’d all be spending more on hoops if it was all we had.

Okay, then lets compare the SBC to the MWC or AAC. Or, gasp, CUSA.

That’s more like it.

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

(03-05-2024 04:26 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 06:06 PM)Luckyshot Wrote:  Your graph shows every conference (I didn't look below the SBC, so at least the top 16 conferences) spent less than in 2019? That isn't believable.

Covid cutbacks, but that's not relevant. It affected everyone. My concern is the relative comparisons among mid-majors. You see why A10 and WCC are considered "high mid-major." We want multi-bids without putting in the resources.

They don't, most of them, pay for football. We should have our own basketball division for teams that also sponsor FBS football. Then the Gonzagas and Wichitas can play with the Big East, A10, and WCC and we don't have to compete with their advantage. Limiting D1A basketball to those teams that sponsor FBS football would solve a lot of scheduling. It would prevent conferences from adding basketball only teams and it would make for a better tournament, imo, where more teams would get in that were like-minded. The other 230 teams could do their own thing. I'm sure we could get the SEC and Big50 to go all-in on it. 130 Football AND Basketball teams would be amazing in the same division together, alone. See how many resources they put into basketball when they become second class teams in a lower division. Should have been that way from the start.

(03-06-2024 02:12 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

Sure enough. Beating a hapless ODU three times in a season sure didn’t move the needle.

(03-06-2024 04:23 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 02:12 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

Sure enough. Beating a hapless ODU three times in a season sure didn’t move the needle.

Very true. Neither did playing a whos who of the MEAC conference.

I don't know if JMU gets an at-large bid, but your season has not gone unnoticed.

(03-06-2024 06:31 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  I don't know if JMU gets an at-large bid, but your season has not gone unnoticed.

CLT says, that would be unfortunate

(03-06-2024 06:31 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  I don't know if JMU gets an at-large bid, but your season has not gone unnoticed.

Those rumors have been out there for about a month now. Nothing new to see.

One source today tried to claim Edwards would follow him, even thought a quote specifically said the Edwards was looking to go pro next year.

Likelihood is we lose Byington to a richer program, but JMU has become a very attractive destination for coaches and players alike. Just another task for the AD to do before he retires.

(03-06-2024 02:12 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

Right, winning at Michigan state isn’t great at all. Anyone could do it.

Except it’s something these ncaa bound tournament teams failed to do:

#11 Baylor
Indiana state
#12 Illinois
Northwestern
And possibly Butler.

(03-06-2024 09:11 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 02:12 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

Right, winning at Michigan state isn’t great at all. Anyone could do it.

Except it’s something these ncaa bound tournament teams failed to do:

#11 Baylor
Indiana state
#12 Illinois
Northwestern
And possibly Butler.

So the best argument is "well, we beat the 20th best team in the country and Northwestern couldn't?"

(03-06-2024 09:11 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 02:12 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:55 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:37 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  I posted this on our Bubble thread on the JMU board. FAU's profile last year going into conference tournament was remarkably similar to ours this year.

What if they didn't win the CUSA tourney? Would they get in? Maybe not. And then no FF run. Goes to show these mid majors with gaudy regular season records win a whole lot of games because they are good. Good enough to go to a FF.

On FAU:

in the regular season they went 26-3. They had a nonconference SOS of 294. there 'marquee' win (if you could call it that) and only p5 win in the regular season was over 16-17 Florida. They lost to 12-21 Ole Miss and 17-14 Middle Tennessee.

what ultimately happened with them? they went to the Final Four. A shot away from playing for a title.

but of course, they won the CUSA tournament title to get in the Dance.
Would they have gotten in otherwise? Who knows. But look what they did when given the shot.

JMU could be the same team and DESERVES an at large bid. Winning games matters. At the level we have won.....most wins in the country, most ROAD wins in the country....that is an overwhelming positive that should be in our favor and make us a LOCK with a couple wins in the SB tourney.

we know that isn't the case. But it shows what a joke it is. As i saw someone mention on twitter the other day...failure to put us in shows the system is so rigged that the decision is already made before the season starts. a team like JMU will never get an at large bid

Listen I’d love to see JMU sneak in if you win 30 and lose in the championship. But claiming it’s “rigged” if you don’t gets a huge eye roll from me. There is BROAD consensus across virtually every bracket projection I’ve seen that you’re on the outside looking in, which sucks. But the methodology behind why is totally reasonable. The MSU win was great but now they are unfortunately 17-12.

For the same reason I didn’t think Liberty football belonged in the NY6, I can see the justification for JMU not going as an at large.

The Michigan State win isn't great lol.

You either have a legitimate schedule (with success) or win the conference tourney. JMU has 1 top 100 win.

If JMU would have beaten App State, maybe there is an argument for an at large, but they didnt, and now they have to win the tourney.

Right, winning at Michigan state isn’t great at all. Anyone could do it.

Except it’s something these ncaa bound tournament teams failed to do:

#11 Baylor
Indiana state
#12 Illinois
Northwestern
And possibly Butler.

So the best argument is "well, we beat the 20th best team in the country and Northwestern couldn't?"

The question that still remains that no one has answered is why a power conference team with barely a winning record and no quality wins ooc at all deserves a spot over JMU. They play a bunch of mid majors at home their entire ooc schedule. JMU actually played a bunch on the road. I doubt it will be answered though. Because they would have to admit that they actually think a 30 win JMU team is worse than a barely winning B$0 team. Sad to see only wins against power conferences matter dripping into these forums.

You have to compare the bubble teams they are up against and it's clear as day to me they are better than most of those listed on the bubble.