Saint Joseph's players huddle during a game earlier this season. (File photo: Aaron Bracy)
By AARON BRACY
February 2, 2024
Big5Hoops.com
As I was watching Wednesday’s George Mason-Saint Joseph’s game, I was struck by the quality of play and quality of players.
George Mason’s Keyshawn Hall is a wonderful talent. He scored 19 points with an array of breathtaking athleticism and superb shotmaking.
St. Joe’s Xzayvier Brown is a fabulous freshman. He made several winning plays down the stretch in the Hawks’ 75-73 victory. In Erik Reynolds II, St. Joe’s has a player who would likely start on any team in the country.
The teams and the players on Wednesday were good.
But the league in which George Mason and St. Joe’s competes, the Atlantic 10 Conference, is not looked at in the same way in which I view it. (Full disclosure: I am a Saint Joseph’s graduate and have followed the A-10 for nearly three decades.)
The Hawks’ victory made the players and coaches feel good, put some smiles on the faces of alumni and got a few positive headlines. In the big picture, though, the win did little more than bump them up a little in the standings.
St. Joe’s, George Mason and 12 other A-10 members not named Dayton are merely playing out the regular season for seeding in the conference tournament. In all likelihood, the only way any A-10 team, other than No. 21-ranked Dayton, can earn a ticket to the NCAA tournament is by winning the conference tournament and gaining the league’s automatic bid into the Big Dance.
Assuming Dayton finishes the regular season with no more than, say, three or four losses and wins the A-10 tournament title, the league will have just one NCAA tournament bid for the second consecutive year.
The A-10. A one-bid league? Again?
These are dangerous times for the Atlantic 10. So, how did the league get here? And what, if anything, can be done to fix it?
A drop in stature
The Atlantic 10 has been a highly respected basketball conference for a long time. Last season, the league got just one bid to the NCAA tournament. Prior to that, the league averaged 3.1 NCAA bids per season over the last 25 years (not including 2020 when there was not a tournament). Six A-10 teams made the NCAA field in 2014; five teams went dancing on three other occasions; there were four teams in 1996, 2004 and 2012; and three teams made it in 11 of those 25 seasons. Only twice in those 25 seasons, in 2001 and ’05, did the A-10 get just one bid.
Now, however, the A-10 suddenly has become a one-bid league.
Why?
There are a few reasons, some of which are out of the league’s control, some of which are in the league’s control and much in between.
–Team exodus: The A-10 has lost some really strong programs in the last 25 years. Temple departed for the Big East and ended up in the American. Xavier and Butler left for the Big East. There have been others, but those were the big blows.
-Conference realignment and scheduling: The realignment and expansion of the so-called Power 6 conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC) have had a trickle-down effect on the A-10.
The biggest issue is scheduling. The Power 6 know that playing schools in the Atlantic 10 is not in their best interest. Under the present metrics, a loss by a Power 6 school to an A-10 school has a greater negative effect than the positive impact of a win.
–Exposure: Having great players doesn’t necessarily guarantee having great teams, but great players give you a chance for success. Great players want to be seen and heard. They know that will happen all of the time in the Power 6 and some of the time in the A-10.
Locally, for example, every one of Villanova’s Big East games are broadcast on national television as part of the league’s TV deal with FOX and CBS. Thirteen of St. Joe’s 18 league games are on linear TV. That’s not bad. Six of La Salle’s 18 A-10 contests are on linear TV. That’s not good.
What can the A-10 do?
First, and foremost, everyone involved in the league needs to take an honest look at the situation – if they haven’t already – admit there is a near crisis and take action. Whatever is decided, there needs to be a commitment and alignment, from the league office, to the school presidents and athletic directors, to the coaches, on a collaborative strategy to regain the A-10’s standing as a multi-bid NCAA tournament league.
Here are a few suggestions:
–Scheduling: The NCAA NET rankings are the leading metric used to determine entry into the NCAA tournament. The NET replaced the RPI in 2018 and has not been kind to the Atlantic 10. The NET breaks the quality of wins and losses into four quadrants. Quad 1 wins are essential today. But you can’t get Quad 1 wins if you aren’t playing Quad 1 games. (For more on the NET and Quad 1, click HERE.)
Through Wednesday, the 15 Atlantic 10 schools played a total of 43 Quad 1 games. That’s an average of 2.9 Quad 1 games per school. By comparison, the 11 Big East schools played 89 Quad 1 games, or 8.1 per member. The A-10 went 6-37 (.140) in those Quad 1 opportunities.
If the A-10 is going to become a multi-bid league next season, league members need to at least double their Quad 1 games. And when they have a chance, they have to win more than 14 percent of the time. Both of those points, probably the first more than the second, are easier said than done.
The Power 6, as mentioned before, are not inclined to give A-10 members a game. That is totally understandable. Frankly, I would do the same thing if I were in that position, as I’d think any of the A-10 coaches would do if they were in a Power 6 job. That said, there are opportunities, and it’s up to the league’s leaders, athletic directors and coaches to figure out how to get it done. It’s not easy, but it absolutely has to happen if the league wants to be more than a one-bid league.
One more note on this before moving on: As I said, a commitment to playing in these Quad 1 games must happen. In turn, school presidents, athletic directors and fans must be supportive of coaches whose nonconference record might suffer by playing six Quad 1 games as opposed to six Quad 3 or 4 games. A 2-4 record, or even 1-5 mark, in six Quad 1 games is going to do so much more for the program than winning four or more of six games against Quad 3 or 4 opponents. Coaches have to feel safe that they aren’t going to be on the hot seat for scheduling games that might not make their record look great but might give them a chance to play in the NCAA tournament.
–Exposure: While scheduling is the biggest challenge and somewhat out of the league’s control, exposure is totally within the league’s control. The league and schools need to market their product in a big way. Need people to know the players and coaches. I can name every coach in the Big East but have to think hard to name half of the A-10 coaches. Why? I see the Big East coaches all the time. I hear them. In college basketball, coaches are the stars. They are the known entities. That star power attracts attention and recruits. The A-10 needs its coaches to be stars.
The league also needs to market its product. Consider this: On Wednesday, the Big East had two league games. The Big East’s Twitter/X account put out 21 videos, either of their own or reposted, of those four games. The Atlantic 10 had four games that same night. The league’s Twitter/X account put out zero videos.
Getting exposure today, with so many social media outlets, is easier than ever. There is nothing from stopping the A-10 from having the most successful social media team in the country. That is something within their control.
Also, the A-10 needs to continue to find ways to get more of their games on linear TV. They announced a new TV deal in December, but I wouldn’t stop until every single league game is on linear TV. Streaming services, like ESPN+, are great for hard-core fans. But streaming is not going to attract the attention needed to let people, most important of whom are recruits, see how good your product is.
Lastly on exposure is this: At every chance, anyone involved with the league needs to tell everyone and anyone how great the league is. Of course, you will need to prove it on the court. But if people keep hearing how great the A-10 is and you pair that with some on-court success in the doubled Quad 1 games you need to be scheduling, the message will start to be heard. Going way back to 1996 when UMass went to the Final Four out of the A-10, then-Minutemen coach John Calipari told anyone and everyone at every opportunity how great the league was. It would be wise for that to happen again.
–Invest: Invest, invest and invest. It is a must. You have to spend dollars to have success. You can’t skimp. Can’t cut corners. Can’t penny pinch. It won’t work. If you don’t want to spend, don’t play. There are other conferences for schools not interested in sitting at this table.
I get it. The economics of higher education today are frightening for schools’ accounting departments. Enrollments and endowments are down most everywhere. So, there will be reluctance to spend when there is continued year-on-year drops in profits. But, and this is a big but, there is nothing that is going to help increase admissions, increase endowments and increase profits at most A-10 schools more than a successful men’s basketball program that makes the NCAA tournament.
(As you probably know, I’m writing a book about the 2003-04 St. Joe’s team, and I will be detailing this very fact as part of the book.)
The NIL landscape only puts a strain on the need to spend. But you have to spend if you want to compete. As the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money. So, invest.
—
These are just some suggestions.
It will be up to everyone involved in the A-10 to figure out what exactly to do.
At least if they want good teams, like George Mason and Saint Joseph’s, and talented players, like Keyshawn Hall and Xzayvier Brown, to be playing a late-January game next season for more than just a chance to move up in the league standings.
—
*Editing note: An earlier version of this story erroneously indicated that Creighton left the Atlantic 10 and referred to George Mason’s Keyshawn “Harris” rather than “Hall.” The story has been corrected.
—
Aaron Bracy has been covering Philadelphia sports since 1996. His byline regularly appears on Associated Press stories. Big5Hoops.com is his second website dedicated to Philadelphia college basketball. Follow Bracy on X: @Aaron_Bracy and like his Facebook and Instagram pages.
Saint Joseph’s stays atop Big 5 rankings
(Through games Feb. 1)
1. Saint Joseph’s (14-7, 4-4 Atlantic 10), no change
2. Villanova (11-10, 4-6 Big East), no change
3. Drexel (15-8, 8-2 CAA), no change
4. La Salle (11-10, 2-6 Atlantic 10), no change
5. Penn (9-10, 1-3 Ivy), no change
6. Temple (8-13, 1-7 American), no change
St. Joe’s Reynolds leads Big 5 scoring
(Through games Feb. 1)
1. Erik Reynolds II, St. Joe’s, 17.7
2. Clark Slajchert, Penn, 17.4
T3. Hysier Miller, Temple, 16.0
T3. Eric Dixon, Villanova, 16.0
5. Khalil Brantle, La Salle, 15.1
6. Tyler Perkins, Penn, 14.7
7. Jhamir Brickus, La Salle, 14.4
8. Justin Moore, Drexel, 12.9
9. Amari Williams, Drexel, 12.1
T10. Xzayvier Brown, St. Joe’s, 11.4
T10. Lynn Greer III, St. Joe’s, 11.4
Drexel’s Williams leads Big 5 in rebounding
(Through games Feb. 1)
1. Amari Williams, Drexel, 7.9
2. Nick Spinoso, Penn, 7.4
T3. Rasheer Fleming, St. Joe’s, 7.3
T3. Tyler Burton, Villanova, 7.3
5. Eric Dixon, Villanova, 6.5
6. Sam Hofman, Temple, 6.2
7. Jahlil White, Temple, 6.1
T8. Jordan Riley, Temple, 5.9
T8. Steve Settle III, Temple, 5.9
T8. Daeshon Shepherd, La Salle, 5.9