(11-13-2018 11:44 PM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(11-13-2018 06:57 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  Correct, NJ. Games against non-D1 are not in the RPI.

Of course the likelihood that our RPI makes any difference whatsoever is extremely small anyway. The Selection Committee to the NCAAT has de-emphasized the RPI for going on a decade. We are in a 1-bid league. If we win the CAA regular season we get an auto berth into the NIT if we don’t win the CAAT. None of which involves the RPI.

JMU gets the gate ($$$$) for these games and pays nothing to the opponent since they are local. Plus they bring some paying fans across town...perhaps more than a D1 cupcake some place else.

What does it take for CAA to ever be considered for a non aq bid? When was last time, gmu and vcu?

Pretty sure it was 2011.

In 2011 ODU won the CAA tourney, with GMU and VCU getting at large bids. Don’t believe either ODU or GMU have had an appearance since then.

(11-11-2018 11:15 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 09:05 PM)Bogey Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 05:43 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  I thought the EMU/B'water DIII gigs were one year rotating?

I hope to see Parker at the point. Lewis playing point if Parker is in foul trouble or getting a breather, fine. I don't care if Parker can't shoot, Lewis is not a PG and watching a player with his talent stumbling around the point is painful to watch and a recipe for a turnover to great play metric of 3 to 1.

Lewis deserves knowing what the hell his role is on this team and if his role is PG, Rowe is crazy. Even if Parker is not 100% ready he should be getting a lot of time at the PG position. Parker should be at the point the entire B-water game getting experience/ready ASAP especially playing a DIII team.

The strips, trips, high arching lob passes and down right hard to watch basketball that comes without a point guard on the floor has to stop already. Rowe recruited Parker, Rowe praises Parker, Rowe, please use Parker.

Lewis was first team all rookie team last year playing the point. You could argue that he should have been rookie of the year. You need to go back and look at film from last year. I would not begin to disagree with anybody that Matt has been as disaster at point so far but pulling that plug at this point sounds like a fantasy league coaching move.

I am not knockin' Lewis at all, love his game. He is not a point guard. I'm not saying he sucks at PG either, it isn't his best game. I would think Lewis would love a PG setting him up for catch and shoots...all CAA.


We can't have 20 turnovers a game, we all agree on that...

I could be wrong but I think Lewis is trying to be a truer PG instead of just being what he is. Titles are titles- I don't think it's as important as we are making it out to be. Lewis is a kid who wants to be great. Rowe has talked about their ongoing conversations about Matt's development not only this year but the next two. I think he is very much a team guy but both Lewis and Rowe see that potential with a guy like Matt at the point with his size and scoring ability. They see the potential edge that gives JMU as a team and also how that will position Matt for the next level.

We want to keep Matt in the program and he can be one of the greats. He is just going through a down period because I think he's trying too much to be a PG and that may not come as naturally to him. Ron Curry was not a natural PG really either but he was a very good player.

Matt will get it going but I wouldn't get too wrapped up in titles or positions. I think first and foremost he needs to get his Mojo back driving to the basket and converting at the line and in the paint. Then he needs to find his 3 point stroke and most importantly he needs to take better care of the ball and defend well. He showed that he can do all of these things as a true freshman. He has worked hard in the off season to be even better. It will start to show my guess is Friday night.

(11-13-2018 07:23 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  Does the NCAA use RPI anymore? I thought they were switching to the NET formula.
At any rate I don’t think that includes D III games either.

They only serve as a phony win on the ledger that people see and no impact on strength of schedule. When it comes to evaliuation time for the NCAA I suspect they will look at all teams while only including D-1 games.

So if JMU finishes 19-12, they would be viewed as 17-12 this year.

I wish the CAA would take a hard stance and say no to DII or DIII games.
The conference and teams would be much better served playing real competition

Every team in the CAA played a D2/D3 this year. The primary reason why is because of NCAA scheduling rules. NCAA teams are only allowed to schedule 29 regular season games. There is one exception as you can schedule 27 regular season games and then add a 4-game multi-team tournament for a total of 31 games. Extra games means extra court time to prepare and practice for the only games all season that actually matter to CAA teams which is the CAA tournament. Further, the tournaments are often held in good destination markets which is a chance to give student athletes and fans a chance to head someone fun for a few days (often at the beginning of the season or near Thanksgiving or Christmas). So what you are seeing is mid-majors, across the board, go with the 27+4 scheduling for 31 total games.
The interesting scheduling loophole is that the NCAA allows you to count a 4-team tournament where each team plays the other 3 teams over the course of 3 days as a 4 game multi-team tournament even though there isn't a bracket or a winner and it is only 3 games, but if you do this then the 4th game of the tournament is to be against a non D-1 team and it can be scheduled at any point prior to or within 14 days following the end of 4-team tournament. You do not have to schedule this 31st game against a non D-1 and you could instead schedule only 30 games, but there is an option for a "free" 31st game if you want it and so JMU is able to cheaply add Bridgewater or EMU as game 31.

This doesn't explain why we chose to play both EMU AND Bridgewater this year, but it is why we have played one each year lately and intend to play one of them every year going forward and why every other CAA team will do the same (and why almost all mid-majors will do the same). Also, you can't play in the same tournament more than once every four years so it is likely JMU will HOST a 4-team tournament once every four years like we did in 2015/2016. So we could host the JMU 'MEN AGAINST BREAST CANCER CLASSIC' again in the 2019/2020 season if we wanted to. Although I suspect that we might opt to wait and host one the year we open The Bank instead. The mid-majors that opt not to schedule the 27+4 and instead schedule the 29 games are the ones that draw massive home crowds and value the revenue from additional home games instead of going on the road to play in a 3 games in 3 days tournament for the experience and practice.

The Bridgewater game was officially part of the Oakland Tournament this year.
Last year Bridgewater was part of the Bahamas tournament.
The EMU game was part of our tournament at the Convo in 2015.

This may be the longest thread about Bridgewater in school history.

Also there are proposed rules in a NCAA powerpoint that could change scheduling in these multi-team tournaments taking effect in 2019/2020. This article lists them and also links to the powerpoint.
https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2018/...19-20-ncaa
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE POWERPOINT (https://t.co/rBWJx8ixRh)

MTE=multi-team exempt

Concept 1
A maximum of 31 games—28 regularly-scheduled games and participation in an MTE, which is limited under this proposal to only three games, not the current four.
or
A maximum of 29 games if a team declines an MTE.
This would seem to encourage more eight-team, three-round bracketed tournaments and four-team, single-site, round-robin events, which are already increasingly popular among mid-majors. As indicated on slide 54, this proposal would replace the fourth MTE contest with a game a team could schedule on its own, which would eliminate the majority of confusion surrounding early season events as they’re currently organized.

Concept 2
Let’s call this nearly-full deregulation. Every team would be able to schedule 31 games, period, MTE or no MTE. However, any event participation would still need to abide by NCAA rules. That is, a team would only be able to participate in a single MTE once every four seasons and conferences can only provide a single team to an individual event.

Concept 3
A maximum of 31 games—either 27 regularly-scheduled games and a four-game MTE or 28 games and a three-game MTE.
or
A maximum of 29 games if a team skips an MTE.
The latter two proposals would likely ensure the current mix of MTE formats remains in place. However, if teams can schedule 31 games with or without MTE participation, I could definitely see power conference teams that don’t get themselves into bracketed tournaments scheduling four home games instead, which would reduce opportunities for mid-majors to pick up wins at neutral-sites.

(11-15-2018 09:02 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  This may be the longest thread about Bridgewater in school history.

To be fair, they are often brought up as future conference mates to Richmond on these boards.

I really hate the concept of the type of early season "tournaments" where they have 4 Power conference schools play each other in a bracket and then 4 mid/low majors lumped together under the same tourney umbrella.

So what your saying is that next season will see us joining the ODAC? RU will be pleased to have a rival.