Committee Chair on Mad Dog Radio-best answer on why no RU
- Thread starter MCKnight2004
- Start date
Wins against what...q3 drek...counting drek road wins in Q2
All non tourney teams..would be good criteria for nit
All non tourney teams..would be good criteria for nit
So we played SH (usually good), Miami 4/5 seed, wake forest ACC team and decent, so if we played Gonzaga and Duke and lost instead of two cupcakes we would of been 17-16.
This makes no sense. We have plenary of W 1 opps (and converted on enough to get in).
If we don’t lose Minny we r in (without them “finding a good OOC win).
They screwed us is the answer
To me some sort of point system...beating Wisconsin at home is better than winning at below 500 Colorado State...it just is
We well played Temple which is as worthless as the Umass series..does nothing for us
Have to do better than Wake but i suppose its q2 at worst next year
It feels like our OOC has to have four teams in the top 50 or so, and the rest at 250+. Get two "good" wins out of conference, and the rest of the OOC slate doesn't really matter.
The problem is, we only had one of those on the schedule in Miami, and we lost while shorthanded. Teams like SHU, Temple, Wake Forest, and UMass Lowell do nothing for us... Not good enough for the committee to care if you win, but good enough to hand you a bad loss if the ball bounces wrong.
The problem is, we only had one of those on the schedule in Miami, and we lost while shorthanded. Teams like SHU, Temple, Wake Forest, and UMass Lowell do nothing for us... Not good enough for the committee to care if you win, but good enough to hand you a bad loss if the ball bounces wrong.
Bac, most posters are emphasizing the need to improve our OOC schedule. But the original post said the committee thought another problem was the team's recent won-loss record. Do you think it was reasonable for the committee to consider that? I think it was, but I'd like to hear your view; you know much more about this stuff than I do.
UMass Lowell wasn’t beating us at full strength with Caleb. You never know about injuries but overall scheduling some SFA type teams at home is fine. What folks don’t understand is metrics are not everything. Nebraska and Minny are both way more talented than Lowell.
I don’t want to play St John’s at the Garden at all now. They will not be good next year and it will be a neutral site game. In many ways, it would be worse than playing Temple in UConn. Lose lose for us.
Temple, SHU, Wake Forest, UMass Lowell.... Wins versus any of these programs this year mean nothing, and losses are crushing. It's always possible to have a player or two out with injury for any given game, or for a fully healthy roster to have an off game.
Teams in the 75- 125 range are good enough to bite you on those nights. Teams in the 250+ range generally aren't, and teams in the 1-50 range are "good losses". That 75- 125 range is a danger zone for OOC scheduling.
I don’t think “good” American east teams are much more of a risk than say, Lafayette. I know the Lowell margin was 8 in the end but that game never felt in danger. It’ll be interesting to see how we look against a much better Hofstra team (with very little to play for). Playing Rider vs CC was fine. There was no material added risk for us (Providence by the way scraped out a one point win against them though..)
We need to get away from neutral classics against non contenders. Better off in a holiday tournament in that case because our guys will likely play more motivated. It’s hard to get excited about a single game at Mohegan Sun against temple or St Bonnie’s in Canada.
Haven’t read all post so sorry if this has already been posted. Joe Lunardi predicted 67 of the 68 teams to make the tournament. His only miss was Rutgers.
To me it wasnt reasonable. Doing poorly because of losses shows on your resume. They wanted to double penalize them
Its body of work supposedly
Ru did struggle but its obvious the committee didnt watch the big 10 tournament games
Thanks! I can imagine the committee thinking that a team that has done poorly in the last part of its schedule is a team that is unlikely to be competitive. But, you're right: as the tournament shows, Rutgers wasn't that bad down the stretch (although losing three in a row wasn't great). It's a shame we weren't picked.
The simple fact is that the NCAA should no longer be responsible for anything. They miserably fail the “eye test” of being able to consistently and fairly apply the rules to all of their member organizations and be fair and impartial as they are tasked with being. You wonder why most big schools want to be done with their oversight.
Last edited:
In time, when the B1G and other conferences break away from this scam of the NCAA, it will be better off for both football, basketball and other sports.
The criteria is a crock and it was road wins, road wins, road wins for the same posters now talking OOC for tonight.....NO team covers all the boxes of Q1, road wins, OOC etc.
Adding USC and UCLA doesn't give me confidence they'll get it right.....then they'll say, you had too few wins in Q1, like they did to screw over Oklahoma State OR, you're under .500 in your league.
It's all a sham....and why should we give any airspace and Q1 opportunities to these middle of nowhere schools in the A10 or AAC.....????......those schools from those leagues aren't getting into the tournament anytime soon.
Again NONE of this has to do with our scheduling. This all has to do with winning. Had we beat the teams we are supposed to beat then we are in the NCAAs
The beef down here in the papers is that Clemson finished with the same amount of wins as NC ST , 2 games ahead of them in the conference and beat them 3 times by 15 , 25 and 26 points . They also had wins over PSU , Duke and a road win at Pitt .
Just another example of the committee's lack of a rational set of guidelines to be selected.
They need to move to a completely objective metric driven process. It will be flawed but at least totally transparent.
Providence Murders Row Out of Conference
217 Rider 66-65
312 Northeastern
314 Stone hill
N Miami 64-74 L
N 99 St Louis 73-76
307 Merrimack
341 Columbia
@ TCU 62-75
265 Rhode Island
302 Manhattan
342 Albany
FULL OF 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
Lost all of their competitive non conference games
and their best win beat Rider by 1??? a team we beat by 30.
Even Wake is better than anything Providence won.
Oh that's right Providence finished 13-7 in the daunting Big East with half the conference sucking G'Town, Depaul, Butler, St John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova but I thought they don't look at conference standings.
Edit** Their 4 Q1 wins Home UConn, @ 75 Villanova, Home Creighton, Home Marquette
Our 4, @ Purdue, @ NW, vs indiana, @ Penn St
Q2s @ 77 Seton Hall, @ 131 Butler, Home Villanova
Our Q2 Home.Maryland, Home Mich St, Home Ohio St, Home Penn St, @ Wisconsin, N Michigan
2W Georgetown, Butler, Depaul, 1-1 St John's, 1-1 Seton Hall
Guess that sweep of Villanova outweighs a sweep of a Penn St.
Home wins vs UConn, Creighton or Marquette outweighs a road victory over Purdue.
JUST SAY WHATS TRUE, ITS EASIER TO DO A BRACKET WHEN THERE IS ONLY 8 TEAMS MAX FROM ANY CONFERENCE. 9 teams takes to much brain function to figure out.
217 Rider 66-65
312 Northeastern
314 Stone hill
N Miami 64-74 L
N 99 St Louis 73-76
307 Merrimack
341 Columbia
@ TCU 62-75
265 Rhode Island
302 Manhattan
342 Albany
FULL OF 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
Lost all of their competitive non conference games
and their best win beat Rider by 1??? a team we beat by 30.
Even Wake is better than anything Providence won.
Oh that's right Providence finished 13-7 in the daunting Big East with half the conference sucking G'Town, Depaul, Butler, St John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova but I thought they don't look at conference standings.
Edit** Their 4 Q1 wins Home UConn, @ 75 Villanova, Home Creighton, Home Marquette
Our 4, @ Purdue, @ NW, vs indiana, @ Penn St
Q2s @ 77 Seton Hall, @ 131 Butler, Home Villanova
Our Q2 Home.Maryland, Home Mich St, Home Ohio St, Home Penn St, @ Wisconsin, N Michigan
2W Georgetown, Butler, Depaul, 1-1 St John's, 1-1 Seton Hall
Guess that sweep of Villanova outweighs a sweep of a Penn St.
Home wins vs UConn, Creighton or Marquette outweighs a road victory over Purdue.
JUST SAY WHATS TRUE, ITS EASIER TO DO A BRACKET WHEN THERE IS ONLY 8 TEAMS MAX FROM ANY CONFERENCE. 9 teams takes to much brain function to figure out.
Last edited:
The conference record only matters to this stupid as hell committee if they want it to matter, like they made it matter for Pitt.
We were screwed every which way. The committee sucks.
yep. they are also doing the same with mountain west. top 4 get in. we were the 9th team in big ten so now it’s becoming clear that’s why we were left out.
yep. and all their big conference wins are at home and playing like crap down the stretch . They have no good wins on the road; their best is villanova
Their logic is so inconsistent for every team. NET is what got Nevada in but our net didn’t matter for us. Only 1 q1 win since mag went down but nc state had 1 win all season. Conf tourney loss for seton hall hurt us but our conf tourney win didn’t matter.
You are missing my point. Every team after the top 10 or 20 has blemishes that the committee can use to justify the team being left out. Every team. Our strong q1 and q2 record, and our strong record against tournament teams is supposed to be considered, and it wasn’t. They ignored our strengths… and you are probably right, they ignored our strengths purposely.
Our season was better than many of the 11 seed at larges that got in over us.
Yeah that's the thing. Strength of Record would have us out but at least it'd be clear and consistent.
Yes - def Mag would’ve helped us in those games. In arguing that his loss shouldn’t have been a consideration, my point wasn’t that losing him didn’t impact us.
I think the reasoning is horse crap. Basically - they are saying that if Mag had been back for the Michigan win and close Purdue loss they would have us in instead. I’m calling BS there. Don’t think it’s true.
Our conference sent 8 teams to the tournament - all 10 seeds or better. No First Fours. 3 of the other 5 are NIT teams. The committee decided that the 3 games we played against BIG conference teams not in these categories was a suitable sample for comparison vs MWC, ACC, etc. We were 1-2. Add in Temple, SHU, Lowell, Wake it just supported their point I guess. We went 3-4 against teams with half a backbone not in a post season field.
I guess they decided we would perform proportionally bad against Nevada and Utah State’s cake walk MWC schedule night in and out based on that data. I’ve come to realize this is really the only argument for taking Nevada while excluding us. They did not care what Nevada, Boise, SDSU and Utah State’s combined records against At Large / NIT looked like. In their mind - we didn’t beat Miami OOC so why look at that.
In reflection, this view highlights one thing that is now a consistent trend for Pike teams. Fluox and our data gurus probably ought to take the predictive metrics and chuck them out the window because they don’t seem to work that well with our style. Our defense gives us a chance to compete with anyone (including the very best) but our offense is bad enough where any team with a spine could nip us on a given day by shooting lights out from 3 or us simply not putting the ball in the basket at all.
Honestly - I get why Pike turned down the trip to Gonzaga but we really ought to rethink. We can continue to play 4 real non-conference games and the rest midmajors at the RAC. But the games should be Kansas, Gonzaga, UConn and Xavier types. Teams that routinely are tourney teams and hope we win one. The data says that should be the model for us.
I think the reasoning is horse crap. Basically - they are saying that if Mag had been back for the Michigan win and close Purdue loss they would have us in instead. I’m calling BS there. Don’t think it’s true.
Our conference sent 8 teams to the tournament - all 10 seeds or better. No First Fours. 3 of the other 5 are NIT teams. The committee decided that the 3 games we played against BIG conference teams not in these categories was a suitable sample for comparison vs MWC, ACC, etc. We were 1-2. Add in Temple, SHU, Lowell, Wake it just supported their point I guess. We went 3-4 against teams with half a backbone not in a post season field.
I guess they decided we would perform proportionally bad against Nevada and Utah State’s cake walk MWC schedule night in and out based on that data. I’ve come to realize this is really the only argument for taking Nevada while excluding us. They did not care what Nevada, Boise, SDSU and Utah State’s combined records against At Large / NIT looked like. In their mind - we didn’t beat Miami OOC so why look at that.
In reflection, this view highlights one thing that is now a consistent trend for Pike teams. Fluox and our data gurus probably ought to take the predictive metrics and chuck them out the window because they don’t seem to work that well with our style. Our defense gives us a chance to compete with anyone (including the very best) but our offense is bad enough where any team with a spine could nip us on a given day by shooting lights out from 3 or us simply not putting the ball in the basket at all.
Honestly - I get why Pike turned down the trip to Gonzaga but we really ought to rethink. We can continue to play 4 real non-conference games and the rest midmajors at the RAC. But the games should be Kansas, Gonzaga, UConn and Xavier types. Teams that routinely are tourney teams and hope we win one. The data says that should be the model for us.
Then just do away with conference tourneys and go immediately to Selection Sunday a day later. Oh wait they won't because money.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Basketball Rutgers Basketball suffers 81-74 loss to Michigan State at MSG
- Latest: colonel_rutgers
-
-
-
