Aaron Breitman is a fraud
- Thread starter Morrischiano
- Start date
More than one person was saying this. Move on. Aaron is always a great source for RU bball
He is such a fraud, he changed his name to Adam
Jfc...
Jfc...
It 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.
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.
Hobbs walked it back saying “it was suggested out there” that the OSU loss would be counted as a win.
I'm a big fan of Mr. Breitman. Really appreciate his coverage of RU Athletics
not blaming Breitman, he just reported what his source said.
But the Committee didn't consider this at all.
But the Committee didn't consider this at all.
Such is news. If your source burn you they aren’t a source worth reporting, and you get roasted. It is what it is.
He is the single greatest Rutgers sports media member. More instant coverage, detailed coverage, breaking news, and wide spread coverage of all sports, than anyone. Also a super fan. You’re a total clueless moron
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.
It was definitely part of the process. Assuming it wasn’t because they didn’t get in is false
The source was solid. It was considered. It wasn’t enough to change the committee’s mind in regard to how they viewed Rutgers post-Mag because they didn’t think they were the same team without him.
Not true Patrick. They did. It didn’t override their view that Rutgers wasn’t the same team without Mag.
Some of our posters here are seriously unwell. Calling out Carino and Brietman, who are MORE than fair to Rutgers is flat out idiotic. Both provide tons of positive coverage.
Which people speculated after my report. That was not what I reported.
Aaron remember that this message board represents about 5-10% of the actual RAC attendance and even less of the overall RU fanbase. Also 25-40% of accounts on here are trolls from other fanbases. Don’t take it to heart, everyone who matters knows you’re the best guy out there for RU sports in the media
If 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.
How everyone on the message board interpreted has no bearing on how the committee interpreted it. Agree it obviously wasn’t enough. When the committee decided to make a decision outside of their own criteria, it didn’t matter. But it was confirmed as part of their resume.
Thank you I appreciate it. I understand people are upset. So am I. It seems pretty clear the committee made an example of Rutgers with its non-con schedule and used the Mag injury as a way to justify excluding them. It’s outside of the criteria they use for evaluation. So that type of decision is of course going to negate anything under consideration on their resume, which included the Big Ten statement. Tough to process. If people want to blame me, that’s their issue not mine.
Not sure why people are picking on Breitman, the real fraud is Carino for his bogus posts like "Dean would be the starting 4".
Why because you say so? Get a life. He’s a bigger RU fan than most so called fans here.
Why are you harping on the schedule? It had nothing to do with the schedule. We played Miami and Wake in OOC and had a helluva conference schedule... good of us to have us projected as high a 5-seed with a gaudy NET ranking well AFTER teh OOC schedule had been completed.
The people on the committee are humans. Humans with ties to teams and conferences. The Big Ten rep was the Minnesota AD. His "work" on the committee got the Big Ten 8 teams in a year it should have been 9 or 10... so said the WORLD who follow such things year after year.
Most of the committee members are not P5 and when a Big Ten team is discussed the Big Ten rep is not present. The ACC rep did a great job getting 5 as did the SEC rep getting 8. They wheeled and sealed and got consensus and, bottom line, got teh job done for their conferences.
Whenever a P5 team got voted on in committee the non-P5's held the balance of power.. the majority. The Big Ten rep needed to work behind the scenes to get in as many teams as we deserved and to focus on the "eye test" thing using the Big Ten Tourney games who, one would assume, would better mirror NCAA Tourney games.
Maybe we are being punished because teh Big Ten is being punished for its poor performance in last years NCAAs. That rep of getting.. what was it 9 bids and so man falling flat (including Rutgers) gave the reps of other conferences ammunition against taking 9 again. It is wrong but that's what probably happened and we helped the haters with teh late-season swoon. But that Tourney performance should have cleared up any doubts as we clearly passed the EYE TEST.
We saw this in the Big East in both football and basketball.. no conference official fighting for us in bowl game assignments or tourney bids.. and we are seeing it in the Big Ten.
I read something about them using the late-season swoon of Rutgers to keep them out.. but Vady had a fantastic end to its season and they kept Vandy out too (10-2 in last 12 including SEC tourney) .
We got screwed because the voters had a vested interest in not taking 9 Big Ten teams. It had nothing to do with any OOC schedule just like it had nothing to do with getting credit for beating OSU at OSU. They had a justification they could use and they used it. And that justification was not consistently applied to other situations.. so you know its a BS rationalization.
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.
He didn’t confirm it he said he wasn’t told anything but “it was out there” essentially referring to Breitmans report. Breitman seems to be the only one who reported/confirmed this.
Not sure if anyone pushed back on this narrative from the committee - but all to often the press/media takes things at face value. Citing the Mag injury as a reason the team did not make it flies in the face of the selection process supposedly being about the entire book of work and not recency bias. To anyone with any degree of logical thought process - Rutgers snub was likely about the BIG Conference having too many teams. Committee is just covering its ass with the explanation it put out. Complete loss of credibility IMO.
Still going to believe that if our W-L record actually said 20-13, 11-9 then we're dancing. Mag or no Mag.
Yes it does mean they judged Rutgers outside their own criteria. Agree it could be so because they didn’t want a 9th Big Ten team. However to admit they deviated from their own criteria is an issue worth addressing in its own right.
Agree with you. But considering the Big Ten statement didn’t mean changing the record.
I don't know.. I think they probably chose 8 teams from the top conferences (and less for others) and then searched for reasons to eliminate teams so as not to take more from a conference where they had hit their "limit". They'd have to find another Big Ten to eliminate for whatever justification made sense. Maybe if we win 20 they say Rutgers beat PSU twice.. so PSU is out... but they'd have to find something.. or so it seems to me.
Given how they did not penalize Houston for losing its star player and losing its conference championship game.. I think they were just LAZY. They did a lot of work to balance the top seeds by regions and conference matchups and just did not want to have to rework that. I think that's why Rutgers Big Ten Tourney performance was meaningless to them.. because they had already closed the book on us.. lazy bastards.
Maybe the Minnesota AD thought.. "Rutgers nabbed our OC from football.. screw them. I ain't calling anyone on the committee to chat up what Rutgers is doing in the tourney. Rutgers wouldn't reschedule our game so we could get teh Michigan State game in too.. screw them".
Last edited:
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.
"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.
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.
I started to type a similar view last week on this board but backed off because I didn’t want to take the abuse.
They may have considered it and still not selecting us? Have you considered that? If someone on the committee contradicted that I sure haven't seen it. Douchey post.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Four-Star RB John Forster commits to Rutgers Football- Latest: RUONTHERISE
-
