Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you.Hobbs direct quote about tOSU game from our interview yesterday...
"We also had some tough losses that weren't in our non-conference schedule. We were told, or it was suggested out there that the Ohio State game would be counted in effect as a win for us."
We didn't ask Hobbs directly about this, he added this after we brought up upgrading the OOC schedule next year. Hobbs wouldn't bring this up based on the speculation he was hearing on social media, it's pretty clear the RU athletic department was told this directly from member(s) of the selection committee/the NCAA.
thanks for posting. I for one think this was going to fall so far down the line of all their unofficial tiebreakers that it wouldnt have mattered. And like you said, they seem to be so locked in on those excuses they made about injury/late season it wouldnt have mattered.Hi anonymous message board poster. I stand by my report. In my article giving more detail, I stated how this consideration would be applied was unclear. I believe it was to be used in a tiebreaker situation which never manifested. With the committee focused on the Mag injury they essentially disqualified Rutgers and negated the predictive metrics that were so positive for them.
A lot of people misinterpreted what I reported as saying the committee would count the OSU game as a win. In reality, I reported that the committee confirmed they would consider the Big Ten’s statement that the game winning shot would not be accounted for. This information was included on the team sheet and in discussion when Rutgers was considered. If you took it as Rutgers was getting an extra win and therefore would get a bid, I’d advise you contact your past teachers to review reading comprehension.
Appreciate the free press on here.
I confirmed when the committee would review Rutgers’ resume that the statement would be part of the discussion. This was before that actually took place. How it was factored, how individual committee members viewed the issue, and what part of the process it was considered I cant’t pretend to know. It really wasn’t a black and white situation so I don’t think expecting a black and white view like it being counted as a win or not a loss should be assumed. I can’t speak to the process specifically, just that the statement was incorporated in the discussion as part of that process. Lastly, I never reported “they were on board RU didn’t lose that game.” That’s an assumption you are making.thanks for posting. I for one think this was going to fall so far down the line of all their unofficial tiebreakers that it wouldnt have mattered. And like you said, they seem to be so locked in on those excuses they made about injury/late season it wouldnt have mattered.
That being said, I'd be interested to hear you (or your sources) take on how you/they could say that it would be considered and at the same time say consideration does not mean actually pretending they had 1 more quality win and 1 less actual loss? Shouldnt it either be---option 1, 'it is what it is' and thats what the record book shows or option 2, we will pretend it was a RU victory and treat our evaluation based on 20-13 vs 19-14? I dont see how there could be much middle ground if they're already on board agreeing that RU didnt lose the game.
The "whole body of work" is a crockWhatever happened to looking at the whole body of work, not the last 10 games as they used to? Considering the Mag injury goes against how the are supposed to evaluate teams.
Maybe we need to alter the process and have a peer review done by a group of bracketologists before they are allowed to finalize the field in the future. 😉I confirmed when the committee would review Rutgers’ resume that the statement would be part of the discussion. This was before that actually took place. How it was factored, how individual committee members viewed the issue, and what part of the process it was considered I cant’t pretend to know. It really wasn’t a black and white situation so I don’t think expecting a black and white view like it being counted as a win or not a loss should be assumed. I can’t speak to the process specifically, just that the statement was incorporated in the discussion as part of that process. Lastly, I never reported “they were on board RU didn’t lose that game.” That’s an assumption you are making.
Which shows us how much the committee was against 9 Big Ten teams. The committee made their decision to only include 8 B1G teams and the committee cherry picked the worst arguments (Mag especially) about Rutgers to justify their BS choice. And then they didn’t even put us as the first out so we couldn’t say, how bout that OSU catastrophe?not blaming Breitman, he just reported what his source said.
But the Committee didn't consider this at all.
B1G plays 20 conference games. The SEC and B12 play 18. Our extra conference games can and should be considered OOC P6 games.I mentioned the schedule because the committee chair said their non-con schedule and lack of non-con wins were a factor in not being selected. Just as he said the Mag injury was a issue as well.
The funny part is Rutgers played less Q4 games than any other bubble team. Providence played 11 total and their best non-con win was a 1 point win over Rider who Rutgers beat by 30. And agree Wake was a solid win.
I agree the eight team limit for the Big Ten was probably planned and using the Mag injury as a disqualifer when injuries usually only impact seeding is kind of a tell.
To piggyback on this, 17 of Rutgers 20 conference games this year were Q1/Q2. Very strange OOC SOS is held in such high regard, even moreso over total SOSB1G plays 20 conference games. The SEC and B12 play 18. Our extra conference games can and should be considered OOC P6 games.
just fyi, I'm not attacking you or your original posting or claiming you were trying to insinuate anything at all in case you took offense to what i wrote. I'm just generally curious how they can be two different things (again not your words, but the actual act of considering it). I just dont get how someone could say its being considered without that consideration being an unofficial adding 1 RU win and subtracting an RU loss. I dont see how it could be anything but black or white. IF its being considered, then committee is making decisions as if either the game never happened so no win but no loss or giving them a win and removing a loss and basing RU on one of those two scenarios. Otherwise i just dont see any other way to have considered it. So since you were closer to it all my first note was just to see if you had a take on that idea not in terms of defending your original tweet/post but more just as someone in the heart of all of it moreso than many other fans.I confirmed when the committee would review Rutgers’ resume that the statement would be part of the discussion. This was before that actually took place. How it was factored, how individual committee members viewed the issue, and what part of the process it was considered I cant’t pretend to know. It really wasn’t a black and white situation so I don’t think expecting a black and white view like it being counted as a win or not a loss should be assumed. I can’t speak to the process specifically, just that the statement was incorporated in the discussion as part of that process. Lastly, I never reported “they were on board RU didn’t lose that game.” That’s an assumption you are making.
And how is that AB's fault? Redirect your hate elsewhereIf they were going to consider the BiG statement that the game winning shot by OSU should not have counted, it is a reasonable inference that they would look at that game as unofficially a 20th win. Almost everyone here did. At the end of the day it wasn’t a game changer.
It’s not strange, it’s convenient. This committee sucks.To piggyback on this, 17 of Rutgers 20 conference games this year were Q1/Q2. Very strange OOC SOS is held in such high regard, even moreso over total SOS
This committee SUCKS.It’s not strange, it’s convenient. This committee sucks.
Same, also thought I might have just been paranoid but I guess notI started to type a similar view last week on this board but backed off because I didn’t want to take the abuse.
like many other things they said, that makes zero sense with who they invited and left out.I mentioned the schedule because the committee chair said their non-con schedule and lack of non-con wins were a factor in not being selected. Just as he said the Mag injury was a issue as well...
That^^^^^ and at the time they selected the teams we were the 9th. And since it was us or PSU.. PSU had a better record even though we beat em twice and the way we ended the season was not how a tournament team ends it. The Big Ten tournament changed my mind.. re: our worthiness.. but teh committee had already decided and PSU had a better tournament.. though they would lose to the same team we lost to in nearly the same way... close game... so they would have kept their edge over us.BINGO. Rutgers is not in the Tourney because the Selection Committee did not want a 9th B10 team. So they manufactured the Mag and OOC issues as pretext. This is the foreseeable trap we created by collapsing after Mags got hurt. Time to move on.
Non confererence SOS:
Mich State 37
Nebraska: 101
Wisconsin 137
Purdue 140
Michigan 168
Iowa 234
Ohio State 244
Indiana 271
Maryland 285
Northwestern 291
Penn State 303
Illinois 323
Minnesota 339
Rutgers 342
Bold teams made tourney
I mean its all BS anyway. Im 99% certain their decision making was thisIt was a smart move by the NCAA.
1. Say that the OSU game will be considered as a tiebreaker if they’re close to another bubble team to appease RU fans.
2. Bump RU down to second team out to make it “clear” that RU wasn’t close enough to use the tiebreaker.
3. Avoid future conversations about blown calls that impacted games while minimizing fallout from this instance.
Masterclass.
I agree with you Aaron, I think the 8 team Big Ten limit was decided on, and the committee looked for anything they could, even if it made no sense, as a reason for excluding Rutgers. I enjoy your Scarlet Faithful videos.I mentioned the schedule because the committee chair said their non-con schedule and lack of non-con wins were a factor in not being selected. Just as he said the Mag injury was a issue as well.
The funny part is Rutgers played less Q4 games than any other bubble team. Providence played 11 total and their best non-con win was a 1 point win over Rider who Rutgers beat by 30. And agree Wake was a solid win.
I agree the eight team limit for the Big Ten was probably planned and using the Mag injury as a disqualifer when injuries usually only impact seeding is kind of a tell.