Atlantic 10 Conference · Commissioner Candidate
PROJECT
TREY
A conference-wide competitive and economic strategy designed to help the Atlantic 10 consistently become a multi-bid league — and generate as many NCAA Tournament units as possible.
The Foundation
The Core Logic
NCAA Tournament Units
Units are the currency of mid-major survival. Every at-large bid, every tournament win — they compound.
Conference Revenue
Units mean revenue. Every at-large bid pays dividends — now and in future years.
Stability & Relevance
Revenue means stability. Stability means relevance and control over our future.
The Framework
Three Prongs. One Direction.
01 / 03
The Engine
Scheduling, Analytics & Competitive Optimization
Third-party analytics supporting smarter scheduling, Quad distribution planning, and a conference-wide transfer portal database — building rosters and schedules by design, not by accident.
Explore the Data →02 / 03
The Multiplier
Media & Visibility Strategy
Coordinated national media relationships and basketball-native digital content — filling the narrative vacuum and building brand equity where it counts. Traditional credibility. Digital reach.
03 / 03
The Sustain
Revenue Generation & NIL Baseline Support
Conference-level sponsorship, A10 logo co-branding, and vetted partnerships that raise the NIL floor for every member — without mandates or lost institutional autonomy.
The Outcome
A Repeatable Model.
"This conference already has the coaches, the brands, the venues, and the basketball culture. Project Trey ensures we have the alignment to match."
Meet Craig Pintens →Prong One · The Engine
The Damage Happens Before January
Once conference play begins, the NET does not move nearly as much as people assume. November and December largely determine how teams are perceived, seeded, and selected. This data proves it.
A10 NET Rankings: Dec 29 vs. March 3
Pre-conference = Dec 29, 2025 | Post-conference = Mar 3, 2026 | Change = movement during conference play
| Team | Pre-Conf NET (Dec 29) | Post-Conf NET (Mar 3) | Change in Conference Play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saint Louis | 27 | 23 | ▲ +4 |
| VCU | 59 | 46 | ▲ +13 |
| Dayton | 87 | 70 | ▲ +17 |
| George Washington | 81 | 86 | ▼ -5 |
| George Mason | 84 | 99 | ▼ -15 |
| Davidson | 118 | 105 | ▲ +13 |
| Saint Joseph's | 246 | 132 | ▲ +114 |
| Duquesne | 168 | 133 | ▲ +35 |
| Rhode Island | 111 | 146 | ▼ -35 |
| Richmond | 109 | 151 | ▼ -42 |
| St. Bonaventure | 101 | 152 | ▼ -51 |
| Fordham | 210 | 181 | ▲ +29 |
| La Salle | 271 | 238 | ▲ +33 |
| Loyola Chicago | 326 | 306 | ▲ +20 |
🔎 Key Insight: Scheduling Is a Conference Responsibility
The data demonstrates that for most Atlantic 10 programs, non-conference scheduling determines the ceiling and floor for the entire season. Teams that entered January in strong NET positions generally maintained or built on that standing. Teams that entered January in weak positions rarely recovered enough to change their tournament narrative. This is not a coaching problem — it's a scheduling information problem. Project Trey addresses it directly by providing every member institution access to analytics-driven scheduling intelligence before contracts are signed.
💰 The Revenue Math
Each NCAA Tournament unit is worth approximately $362,000 per year for six years to the conference pool. A single additional at-large bid generates roughly $2.1 million in total unit revenue distributed across member institutions. The entire cost of a conference-level analytics and scheduling intelligence initiative is a fraction of that figure — meaning the program pays for itself the moment it influences a single selection outcome. This is not an expense. It is an investment with a measurable return.
Prong One · Analytics Infrastructure
The Conference-Wide Analytics Platform
Off-the-shelf recruiting tools provide identical data to every program — and none of it is customized to your style of play, your roster needs, or your positional priorities. This is what a purpose-built, A10-specific intelligence platform looks like.
Why Custom Intelligence Changes Everything
The following describes the architecture of a purpose-built, conference-level analytics platform. It draws on the same principles used by programs building proprietary scouting infrastructure — with one key difference: built at the conference level, the cost is shared, the data is richer, and every member institution benefits from a smarter starting point.
Data Integration
NCAA feeds, Synergy play-type data, international stats with full league normalization, and historical transfer success patterns — all in one place, updated in real time throughout the season.
Custom Attribute Weighting
A 100-point scoring system per position, configured separately for each member institution's preferred style of play and roster philosophy. The same player can score differently for VCU than for Dayton — because they should.
Two Recruiting Buckets
High-Major Down: Limited stats, pedigree-based evaluation with usage context. Low-Major Up: Stat-heavy with conference strength normalization to adjust for competition level and production context.
Conference Strength Normalization
Production means nothing without context. The platform normalizes every player's statistics relative to their conference's strength — so a 15 PPG scorer in the CAA is evaluated against the same framework as a 12 PPG scorer in the ACC.
Portal & International Scouting
Real-time portal entry alerts, red flag monitoring, and international stat translation — including league-by-league normalization for European and global leagues that feed into the college game at increasing volume.
AI-Assisted Evaluation
Social media and news scanning, projection modeling for role fit, and pattern recognition across historical transfer outcomes — applied carefully to reduce risk and improve decision-making. Human judgment always leads.
Position-Specific Scouting Framework
The platform scores players differently by position, weighted by what actually translates at the A10 level. Below is a sample of how position priorities are structured — customizable per institution.
| Position | Primary Evaluation Focus | Key Metrics |
|---|---|---|
| PG | Decision-making & system fit | Pick-and-roll IQ, assist-to-turnover ratio, pace management, usage rate |
| SG | Shot-making & size for level | True shooting %, pull-up efficiency, size benchmarking, combo ability |
| SF | Athleticism & positional versatility | Length metrics, switchability, transition scoring, defensive versatility index |
| PF | Floor spacing & physicality | 3-point rate & efficiency, rebounding rate, screen quality, pick-and-pop IQ |
| C | Rim protection & rebounding | Block rate, contested rebound %, defensive rating impact, mobility score |
How It Works: The Scouting Workflow
Continuous Data Ingestion
Real-time updates from NCAA feeds, Synergy, and international sources throughout the season. Performance spikes, limited games played alerts, and portal entry notifications surface automatically.
Conference-Level Normalization
Every player's production is adjusted for competition level, usage rate, and role. A high-usage star in a weak conference is evaluated differently than a low-usage contributor in a power conference.
Institution-Specific Scoring
The platform applies each member institution's custom attribute weights, generating a fit score that reflects their system — not a generic ranking. The same prospect surfaces differently for a tempo-and-pace program than a half-court, physical team.
Coach Collaboration Layer
Visual dashboards with coach notes (attributed), printable scout sheets, multi-year performance tracking, and injury/transfer red flag alerts. Coaches add context; the platform surfaces the candidates.
Formal Reporting Cadence
Structured reports at three key moments: preseason (portal landscape), post-non-conference (mid-year targeting), and late February (offseason preparation). The conference never chooses players — it gives schools a smarter starting point.
🎯 The Competitive Argument
In a portal-driven era, information asymmetry is a competitive disadvantage. Programs with better data on player fit, production context, and historical transfer success patterns consistently outperform those relying on traditional scouting alone. At the conference level, the Atlantic 10 can provide this infrastructure at a fraction of what individual schools would spend — and make every member institution more competitive in the portal simultaneously. This is the conference supporting its schools, not controlling them.
Commissioner Candidate
Craig Pintens
Athletic Director · Loyola Marymount University
Craig Pintens
Athletic Director
Loyola Marymount University
Craig Pintens serves as the Athletic Director at Loyola Marymount University, where he has built a reputation for innovative leadership, athlete-centered administration, and a data-forward approach to competitive strategy.
His vision for the Atlantic 10 — Project Trey — reflects a career built on the conviction that information, alignment, and strategic clarity are the multipliers that separate good programs from great conferences.
Pintens brings direct experience in NIL ecosystem development, analytics infrastructure, media rights strategy, and conference-level partnership development — making him uniquely positioned to execute the three-prong framework outlined in this presentation.
His approach to the commissioner role is rooted in collaboration, not control. The conference's job is to unlock opportunities individual schools cannot access alone — and to build the alignment that allows every member institution to compete at the highest level.