Phil,
I agree with you 100% on IF the Dukes don’t make it to the NIT, and they get an invite to the CBI, that they take it this year.  In the past, I looked at it is a give a game to the stinky teams.  However, with how the Dukes have played this year...in “almost” every game, that these extra games will only help the players and if they can go on a run, their overall record will of course improve which would help with recruiting.  Still hoping for the NIT, but like most things, that is all on the Dukes.  If they win at least 1 more (yes, we want more) and one or 2 in the tournament they have a shot.  Go Dukes

Well, KD signed for 5-years as I recall; so unless he decides to move-on, he will have a minimum of two more years.  If they have success in the next two years, he may sign-on for a few more!  I’d like to see them do an extension, perhaps after this season.

levon1975 wrote:

Well, KD signed for 5-years as I recall; so unless he decides to move-on, he will have a minimum of two more years.  If they have success in the next two years, he may sign-on for a few more!  I’d like to see them do an extension, perhaps after this season.

KD signed a seven year deal which runs through the 2023-2024 season.

7 is what I recall as well.  He has said before this might be his last contract.   But we'll see, I doubt he walks away if DU is on the cusp, and I doubt DU lets him.  But thats a few years down the road.

I agree that the transfer rule change will result in big changes.
But the change could help the Dukes.
If a 4 star player sits on the bench for a P-5, he could be
recruited by the Dukes and would have the opportunity to
play immediately.

levon1975 wrote:

Brian wrote:

levon1975 wrote:

Well, KD signed for 5-years as I recall; so unless he decides to move-on, he will have a minimum of two more years. If they have success in the next two years, he may sign-on for a few more! I’d like to see them do an extension, perhaps after this season.

KD signed a seven year deal which runs through the 2023-2024 season.

Thanks for the correction, so 7-years means that he will have plenty of time to get this thing humming along as one of the top programs in the A-10.  I don't doubt that it could happen; but what concerns me the most is the changing landscape of the college game.  The anarchy that will ensue when the transfer rules are changed might just make it next to impossible for a program in the A-10 to develop any kind of sustainable success. When you are fortunate to find that diamond in the rough, that player he will be recruited from your program after one or two seasons by a P-5 school that needs to fill a hole on their roster.   
 

Agreed on the transfer landscape. The higher up you are, the more you are protected from your recruiting misses with the ability to just poach players, while the lower you are the more susceptible you are to losing a key player that either shows promise early or has developed into that role 2-3 years in.

duq81 wrote:

It's been an average of 10-12 auto bids for the NIT, with a high of 15. We need to reach 22 wins to have a chance, and even that would have us sweating. 21 wins won't get it done.
 

At 22 wins, we'd have 8 losses. 97 teams in A-10 history have finished the regular season with 8 or fewer losses. All 97 have gone to either the NCAA or NIT. Now when you get up to 8 losses, that is tilted towards the NIT, but just barely (9 NCAA, 10 NIT). If we win out, we're in almost regardless of the conference tournament; especially considering those last four wins would likely include a quad 1 win and two quad 2 wins. George Mason is a must win, winning two of the other three puts us in good position, and I think even just winning one could put us in if we catch some breaks. Of course I'd rather run the table and take any doubt of where we're going out of the equation.

duq81 wrote:

At 22 wins we'd have at least 9 losses. you have to count Brooklyn. 22 might make it, 21 won't because the schedule was so weak. Winning one? There is no way on earth we're getting into the NIT with only 19 wins. After starting 10-0, I'd consider the season a failure if we ended up with only 19 wins. We need to at the very least, split the last four games, and then avoid our regular one and done in Brooklyn for me to consider this a successful season. 21-11, that's the minimum for me. We've been very healthy since the season began. You know you can't always count on that. No excuses. 21 wins is a must! Go get em!

My historical numbers were from just the regular season. 97 A-10 teams have had 8 or fewer losses going into the conference tourney. 97 made either the NCAA or NIT. So I think running the table makes us a lock for the NIT. We're pretty close now, and going 4-0 would give us an additional quad 1 win and two quad 2 wins. When I was talking about the wins I meant other than George Mason. In reading it back now I see that wasn't clear. So like I said I think George Mason is a must win for us to have any chance at the postseason. Winning two of the other three I think still puts us in a good position; by no means a lock, but I think we'd still be in. When I said winning just one I meant one of the others. Win the must win against George Mason and win one of the other games and I think we'd have a chance at the NIT. I don't think we'd make it, but I do think we'd have a chance. So I think we're on the same page. Obviously the conference tourney plays a big part in any postseason discussion, but with no seeds locked in yet, it's too early to even make projections.

Last edited by luckymcd (2/25/2020 4:23 pm)

Steele was shooting like a 2 in practice. PSN had a Dambrot interview today and Steele was shooting 3's in the background and it looked like he was doing pretty well. I starting counting after awhile and came up with him making 91 out of 137. Wish that would carry over to the games. 

WashPaRick wrote:

Steele was shooting like a 2 in practice. PSN had a Dambrot interview today and Steele was shooting 3's in the background and it looked like he was doing pretty well. I starting counting after awhile and came up with him making 91 out of 137. Wish that would carry over to the games. 

The interview was so interesting I didn't even notice Steele lighting it up. I went back and watched to see him, and he was knocking down an impressive number of threes. Seeing that displays clues you into why Dambrot basically gave him a green light to start the year. It's frustrating when all you see is the games and he's missing more than he should, but seeing that display lets you know he is a good shooter. Now someone just needs to work to get that to translate to games.

WashPaRick wrote:

I went to a high school game this year that got canceled and about half a dozen of us found the balls and started shooting. At one point I made 10 of 11 from the 3. 

Do you have any eligibility left?