Then how does PSU get inThat much is clear.
The conf championships meant nothing and the seedlings reflected that.
Then how does PSU get inThat much is clear.
The conf championships meant nothing and the seedlings reflected that.
It’s a clear message to RU that ooc sos needs to get better and I hope Pike hears it. But it just seems so stupid when overall sos is higher than teams who have a high ooc sos but low overall.And their ooc sos is 197 to ru 314
Bullshit. They say they look at the whole season and not the last x games. And now this jackass gives the recent difficulty bullshit.First Question asked by Mad Dog and Steve Torre was Why Rutgers was not included…it was a very direct answer, that should be printed and pasted on the Coaching staffs office door! Scheduling matters a lot, winning big games in non conference matters most.
”Their Non-Conference schedule, and non-conference wins. The committee looked hard at that. They were trying to find something they could grab on to. But for non-conference, as it related to success, it was lacking”
he continued regarding Mag injury,
’” From Feb 7th on, in several games we had the chance to observe them, and how they looked down the stretch, they had a difficult time. The combination of the two, is why they were left out”
Boeheim got away with it for years by not losing conference games to the lower echelon once January came around. We didn't uphold that with that loss to MinnesotaHate to say it but we all knew at some point the piss poor OOC scheduling would come back to haunt us.
Pike is like Schiano when it comes to OOC scheduling - very risk averse.
This issue has been discussed many times - even last year by bracketologists etc.
Need to schedule a solid ooc schedule and hopefully win some of these games.
The bracketologist went by what the committee has done in previous years. They didn’t account for the chairman to come out and basically say “f Rutgers we went by the eye test. Oh yeah we also don’t give a damn about quad 1 wins or who you beat.”My biggest gripe is how is it the committee could disagree with over 90% of the bracketologists regarding RU. They really do need to better define their selection criteria.
So although folks argued that the committee no longer looks at finish down the line and the committee even saying that changed that they would look at the totality of the season, the reality is the old habits die hard. How you finish does matter regardless of what the committee "officially" says.First Question asked by Mad Dog and Steve Torre was Why Rutgers was not included…it was a very direct answer, that should be printed and pasted on the Coaching staffs office door! Scheduling matters a lot, winning big games in non conference matters most.
”Their Non-Conference schedule, and non-conference wins. The committee looked hard at that. They were trying to find something they could grab on to. But for non-conference, as it related to success, it was lacking”
he continued regarding Mag injury,
’” From Feb 7th on, in several games we had the chance to observe them, and how they looked down the stretch, they had a difficult time. The combination of the two, is why they were left out”
The simple fact of the matter, regardless of what this committee guy says, is that if you win the games you're supposed to win then you don't have a problem. A tournament team should go at least 9-2 against our OOC schedule, and at least 20-13, ideally 21-12, against the schedule we played.I’ll be surprised if Coach Pike switches it up. His stubbornness is a strength and a weakness and I like where the program is at, so I don’t know…
Did he? Did he not have us in like nearly everyone else? Bringing up some points of concern while still having RU in your bracket is absolutely not "nailing it".Wow Wachtel nailed it
Did the bubble teams that got in have better out of conference performance? Because unless they did, then it's just excuse making from the committee.The schedule thing is the key. That is in your control. Every committee member I have known over the years has said that. It garners kudos from the committee.
So how does our OOC help us gain ACC bias?Nc state is in because of the acc bias and no loss outside q2
Last year good wins outweighed everything else. This year seemed to be about simply stacking wins with no regard for whether they were any good. It's a moving target.My biggest gripe is how is it the committee could disagree with over 90% of the bracketologists regarding RU. They really do need to better define their selection criteria.
That’s not a good schedule.SHU
St Johns
Gavitt
Holiday tourney
Temple
Princeton
Monmouth
Fdu
Rider
It’s really that simple. Its not complicated. Why we wont do that, im just not sure
I think you nailed it. The committee claims it does not count number of bids per conference. I have never believed that.Still sounds to me like veiled rationalization for not wanting to take nine B1G teams.
It's fine..That’s not a good schedule.
That's the problem. The conference was way more balanced than top heavy.I think you nailed it. The committee claims it does not count number of bids per conference. I have never believed that.
The B1G was not a nine bid conference this year.
They would have gotten a higher seed if it was considered moreThen how does PSU get in
G is a big one.The heroes crying about meaningless November holiday tournaments are going to be disappointed when they see the schedule for 2023-24......just prepare yourself if we don't see Kentucky, Baylor Gonzaga in back to back games, they're going to tell us for the next 5 years why the schedule applies to RU, but nobody else in the ACC or Mountain West.
Instead of looking at how UNC was 3rd from the field and beat nobody all year, people will realize that the OOC wouldn't have mattered. They have 7 different variations of excuses.
A) NET rating
B) Last 10 games.
C) OOC schedule
D) Q1 road wins
E) Q 3/4 losses
F) Strength of Conference
G) Amount of bathrooms and distance to and from bathrooms at your home arena.
I think as well you need to use logic at some point. We were even with a number one seed. We were 7-8 vs the field. We legitimately could have made a run. We were #4 defense in the nation. Very low iq people making these decisionsSorry. - this was a HORRIBLE job by the committee. The four losses could have been used as a rationale, and I would have accepted that, but when they talk about an injured player and strength of schedule, then they enter the world of BS. If that criteria was stated as earlier, then we would not have been in almost every bracket and the NET would have been irrelevant. The committee failed big time by considering factors that were not stated earlier. Bait and switch and excuses - we were robbed.
Scarlet Jerry
When you change the words “holiday tourney” with memphis, oklahoma and siena, it isThat’s not a good schedule.
The committee chair said that's not how its done. player availability for the tournament is a consideration in seeding and selection. He said it on saturday and again today.Yes. The team is an entity and it should be based on the accomplishments of that entity.
For all intents and purposes yeaThe simple fact of the matter, regardless of what this committee guy says, is that if you win the games you're supposed to win then you don't have a problem. A tournament team should go at least 9-2 against our OOC schedule, and at least 20-13, ideally 21-12, against the schedule we played.
Do that and all this masturbation about OOC scheduling means absolutely nothing. If you have a weaker schedule, you need to win more games. That's simple common sense. The issue is the failure to do that, not the schedule.
Did he? Did he not have us in like nearly everyone else? Bringing up some points of concern while still having RU in your bracket is absolutely not "nailing it".
That's honestly scandalous and goes against everything the committees of years past have done.The committee chair said that's not how its done. player availability for the tournament is a consideration in seeding and selection. He said it on saturday and again today.
That's fine, the selection criteria for this tournament is extremely stupid. I'm talking about the actual, reasonable way to do it, not what's actually done.The committee chair said that's not how its done. player availability for the tournament is a consideration in seeding and selection. He said it on saturday and again today.
It’s a dumb consideration. We’re just going to write off the first three quarters of a team’s season because a starter gets hurt?The committee chair said that's not how its done. player availability for the tournament is a consideration in seeding and selection. He said it on saturday and again today.
Like imagine if NFL teams were denied the #1 seed in the playoffs because the QB got hurt in week 17. The entire idea is absurd on its face.
Agreed. But are they low IQ people? Or are they biased toward certain conferences getting too many teams in when in the recent past that conference hasn't performed well? I believe we gave the committee an out when we lost too many games at the end and especially to teams like Minny and Nebraska. I think the committee was looking to penalize the B1G and unfortunately we were the last team considered.I think as well you need to use logic at some point. We were even with a number one seed. We were 7-8 vs the field. We legitimately could have made a run. We were #4 defense in the nation. Very low iq people making these decisions
But the committee chair is going on TV and radio and saying that the absence of Mag was given a weight higher than the games that we lost without him. Which is incredibly stupid.If the QB got hurt in Week 14 and they lost 3 straight games - they aren’t getting a #1.
Our full season resume includes losing all those games after Mag injury.
so next year you can add USC and UCLA and we should still go out and add a few more monsters?It is stupid when your overall sos is strong. It matters is you are in lousy conference as a reward for trying.
The games, sure. That's a completely different thing. We're talking about docking a team because of injuries, not because of losing games.If the QB got hurt in Week 14 and they lost 3 straight games - they aren’t getting a #1.
Our full season resume includes losing all those games after Mag injury.
Like imagine if NFL teams were denied the #1 seed in the playoffs because the QB got hurt in week 17. The entire idea is absurd on its face.
The amount of PTSD people around here have from the Big Ten laying 1.5 eggs in recent tournaments is second to none.Agreed. But are they low IQ people? Or are they biased toward certain conferences getting too many teams in when in the recent past that conference hasn't performed well? I believe we gave the committee an out when we lost too many games at the end and especially to teams like Minny and Nebraska. I think the committee was looking to penalize the B1G and unfortunately we were the last team considered.
Yes I feel 100% certain they are low IQ.Agreed. But are they low IQ people? Or are they biased toward certain conferences getting too many teams in when in the recent past that conference hasn't performed well? I believe we gave the committee an out when we lost too many games at the end and especially to teams like Minny and Nebraska. I think the committee was looking to penalize the B1G and unfortunately we were the last team considered.