Aaron Breitman is a fraud
- Thread starter Morrischiano
- Start date
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.
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.
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. 😉
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?
The committee BLOWS.
B1G plays 20 conference games. The SEC and B12 play 18. Our extra conference games can and should be considered OOC P6 games.
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
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.
And as you mentioned and i agree with, i dont think any of that was enough either way to pull them ahead of what the committee said was the reasons for keeping them out.
And how is that AB's fault? Redirect your hate elsewhere
It’s not strange, it’s convenient. This committee sucks.
like many other things they said, that makes zero sense with who they invited and left out.
Its a bit of a moot point now with the loss to Hofstra at teh RAC... but the final explanation I have settled on is they had a hard limit on the Big Ten not getting more than 8 and the way they worked they started with all teh "must-invites".. the clear cases.. and sorted them then went through the next X... all before conference tourneys began.
When they got to a batch of teams they deemed about equal.. near teh end of their non-auto-qualifiers.. they could use the last X games record to keep us out vs some other Big Ten team for the 8th conference invite.
I am NOT saying teh NCAA had that instruction or that limit.. I am saying that the reps of the other conferences all had that limit in mind. Because last year the Big Ten had 9 and that ninth team meant one of their schools was denied. Then the Big Ten did poorly and all those committee members who did not want a 9th Big Ten felt justified and the conferences probably all told their reps to make sure something like that did not happen again.
So they got the limit on Big Ten invited and that was that. Rutgers out.. and, really, should we have replaced another Big Ten team given how we ended our season? No. What we did in teh Big Ten tourney meant nothing to them.. they already had their seedings and matchups and that was that. Maybe if we made it to the final they ,right have kicked Penn State out and let us take their slot... that ould have been easy to write into their plan re: seeds locations matchups.
Still say we should have turned down the NIT. If we weren't really justified in earning an NCAA bid and getting screwed over I would have said, sure, NIT. But that had to suck and I'd never thing the guys would have recovered. They sleepwalked through that Hofstra game.
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.
We think we should compare our full record.. including the eye test from the tournament versus non-BigTen invitees... but that was not what the committee was doing... no way. The only thing they were looking to do that last day was handle where teh autobids went to someone they did not figure on. Liek Princeton winning over Yale.. they just moved Yale off the board and stuck Princeton in there. They did not move Houston off the one line... that would mean too much work... lazy bastards.
Last edited:
I mean its all BS anyway. Im 99% certain their decision making was this
"Rutgers, a team that isn't a traditional power, has sucked since they had a major injury and isn't playing like a tournament team." (which is true - if you trust Torvik, we are barely an NIT team since Mag went down). All the rest is just using whatever weaknesses we had in our resume as an excuse to paper over that logic, since they have explicitly said they won't consider last ten games as a factor. Had we had some other set of weaknesses (a better oOC with more losses. A better record against Q3, but worse against Q2) they would have used that instead. They already had a conclusion in mind and reasoned backwards from it. Had we beat Purdue then we probably would have forced their hand, but after the Minnesota loss, only run to the Big Ten semis was likely to get us in.
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.
