SHUSource said:

I don't have my head fully around this yet, but even if basketball-onlies had the freedom to spend $20 million, that doesn't mean they have the $20 million to spend. Seton Hall certainly doesn't, and while some of our contemporaries will have more, and maybe way more, it won't be anywhere near that figure. Mu impression is that we are figuring to spend about the same as places like Rutgers once you've distributed to football and whoever else gets a cut. But there certainly won't be any advantage for us, at least if I understand this at all.

Click to expand...

FIJI'83 said:

I believe its time for the B10 to reign him in. Besides being a terrible ref, his "watch me", "see me" self promoting clown act has become an embarrassment to the league. Its now escalated to him interfering with the players on the court as illustrated by him getting in the way of Ace during a critical scoring play. He needs to be reminded that the fans don't come to games to watch the referees.

Click to expand...

Eagleton96 said:

I don't think most hoops schools will spend $20 mil on hoops. Maybe Kentucky etc. will though. But I think it will be pretty easy for them to squeeze out 4-5 mil, which is more than RU and other football schools will be able to because we still need the majority of the funds for football.

Click to expand...

bac2therac said:

i will be doing my first deep dive next week but for people who rave about 11-11 in Q2 should be strong enough for RU to get in...here is the concern, with so many of the power 5 in the top 100, it means many less chances for Q3 losses and more chances for a large amount of games in Q1/2 and shots for Q2 wins....so compared to other seasons we may see a situation with less Q3 opportunities across the schools with more than one Q3 loss can stick out....the exception of all this is the ACC which is a sham of a conference right now and its Quad 3 galore over there...that will impact schools like smu, pitt, wake and even unc as they try to get bids...smu is 18-5 I think but weak in their quality of wins and Q1 wins and do not have many opportunities for many more...can a school that goes 23-8 in the ACC not get a bid with a net in the 40s...we may find out

my negativity toward RU at 18-13 is that there will also be many other schools with a similar record without 2 Quad 3 losses and with a better ooc win...see Nebraska or Ohio State

Click to expand...

RC66 said:

RU 76
MD 72

Motivating locker room speech: now looking like we are getting passed the point where we risked getting shut out of the B1G tournament; and with lots of ranked opponents in rest of schedule; so we have an opportunity to keep winning to work our way back into NCAA tourny conversation; and that is certainly possible. But we must start today.

Click to expand...

PSAL_Hoops said:

So sure - let’s go back to NET (sort of). VCU remains this year’s fraud and exemplifies why I dislike the system. Green / Fluox - your WAB is growing on me. I like the WAB ranking column on the NET page and wonder if a push should be made for WAB to replace NET. The WAB rankings seem to “get it”. In WAB - VCU is 64. SDSU 40, Drake 42. WAB is right. NET is wrong, plain and simple. There’s no metric that should rank VCU higher than a 5 loss MWC team with wins over Houston and Creighton.

I can’t help wonder what the quads would look like if they were based on WAB. Rutgers, by the way sits at WAB 69 right now…. I wonder how the committee will use it.

Click to expand...