You are 100% correct I remember a couple years ago the head of the committee already said they had the field set up on Friday. Just needed to do seeding and adjustments for bid stealers. I think it's stupid myself but conference tournaments are not in play. I guess things can always change but as of two years ago they didn't matter.
If Rutgers goes 19-15, I think we get a bid.
- Thread starter RidgewoodKnight13
- Start date
This is not correct. 20-15 is .571. 19-14 is .576.
Ok - nevermind. I did it fast this AM heading out the door. The concept I was driving at still stands though I think because on equal total game count pre-tournament it would actually be 17-14 vs 18-13 and then a comparison of 18-14 vs 20-15.
The point I was getting at with this though is simply that if 17-14 vs 18-13 is what “counts”as your record well then, that means it’s actually the case that a home game vs. Monmouth has more meaning to the committee (since it’s part of the original 17 wins) than a neutral BIG tournament game. My contention is the tournament games ought to at least “count” as much as the pre-season home tune ups if the advanced metrics from the games count in NET.
i will give you an example of a tourney game that WILL matter. If OSU goes 2-1 and finishes 17-14 they are right smack on the cut line. 17-15 with a opening Big 10 tourney loss will not get them in. Yet with a big 10 tourney win they will finish at worse 18-15 and its likely the tipping point if there are no bid stealers.
the committee isnt interested in fiddling with conference tourneys on saturday and sunday results and even Friday would be largely dismissed...wednesday and thursday yes
Yeah I agree about OSU in that example but it’s sort contradictory in a sense to the near zero probability scenerio being discussed for RU. Basically what your saying is at 18-15 OSU would be in based on going 1-1 with the 9-11 conference finish right? At the point in time your suggesting the committee cares until, Rutgers would, in the scenerio discussed, be 2-0 in the tournament and riding a 7 game win streak sitting at 19-14 and 10-10. At that isolated stopping point OSU would probably still be slightly ahead of us, but it’d be close and we would still have games to play and they wouldn’t. Are you thinking the committee draws a line in the sand there and says - ok OSU ahead of RU on the S curve and there’s no looking back unless Rutgers wins 2 more games and becomes a bid stealer?
and yeah, I know none of this is happening for a rutgers. We have shown no signs of improving the defense to a level that would be needed to beat the better teams in our conference on the road which is on tap next.
That’s why we root against them, Indiana, and Nebraska. Great time for losing streak
They do - but not as much as I thought on the win front. In the scenerio presented it would be:
Pre-tournament - Rutgers would have wins @ Michigan, @ Purdue, UCLA, Illinois, @ Nebraska
compared to:
OSU would have - UK (neutral), @ Purdue, Maryland, and Texas (neutral)
Yeah, I know - the odds of us winning at Michigan and Purdue practically round to zero….
dont forget a win over Rutgers
but the key difference beyond a 20-25 spot net difference is that osu does not have 2 Quad 3 losses
Right - they don’t. But if we’re saying those first few days of the conference tournament are somewhat meaningful, OSU would have gone 1-1 (winning the easier of two) while RU would be 2-0 (or possibly 3-0). Since NET does continue to update the metrics would be converging. How much so we don’t know.
Maybe OSU still would have a better resume at that point, but they most certainly would not if Rutgers picked up a Saturday win (unless your thinking games played on Saturday truly don’t count).
We’re not going to get in. That said - I do think we would probably be ahead of OSU at 20-15 or 21-15 and they are 18-15 and we lost in the championship game.
The problem would be there would be plenty of other choices to pick from.
The problem would be there would be plenty of other choices to pick from.
I agree with you that the conference tournament games should count the same as any other games. It's absurd that they (possibly) don't but the whole process is kind of absurd.
Since it's not in the official criteria (and the committee changes year to year) some year they will count again and throw everyone for a loop.
So do you think the committee largely doesn't look at conference tournament results because they don't have time to??
Yeah it bothers me that this is a “thing”. If the games are going to be played, they should count. Every game should count the same. For better or worse.
In the scenarios being discussed it would be like 4 games out of 35. More than 10% of the games the team played at that point.
The committee rightfully so wants things in place by Friday not scrambling
Seeding protocols followed..placement in regions..avoiding conference matchups in 1st round..byu scheduling considerations..protected seeds in regions
Seeding protocols followed..placement in regions..avoiding conference matchups in 1st round..byu scheduling considerations..protected seeds in regions
Last edited:
NCAA provides a glimpse into the process of choosing the teams for March Madness
The process for determining the field is rooted in methods developed through years of building brackets.
news.azpm.org
If that’s true move some dates around or something. Games that aren’t intended to count for anything shouldn’t be played. I don’t know about your explanation. It doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to switch a few things around based on the handful of game outcomes left over the weekend. Or at least, that seems like an unjustified reason to simply disregard the game outcomes. There’s no reason those games should be treated as less important than the pile of wins that most major conference teams collected at home against cupcakes early in the season.
lol...um no...friday is late in the process...they already work on having 12-15 contigency brackets, a big 10 semi game on saturday is worthless to them
no its not very easy to move things around with bracketing and seeding principles and making sure protected seeds are not a disadvantage
if you havent won enough games by Thursday then too bad...win your conference tourney
no its not very easy to move things around with bracketing and seeding principles and making sure protected seeds are not a disadvantage
if you havent won enough games by Thursday then too bad...win your conference tourney
How many games per year, on average, are left by Friday that would have a real impact on actual selection (not seeding) if they were given full weight? It's got to be less than one per year on average right?
It's funny that a man who puts so much work into bracketology would justify such laziness by the people actually picking the bracket.
If it's too much work for the humans have an algo pick the brackets. "Games after Thursday don't count because it's too much work" is just super, super weak.
It's funny that a man who puts so much work into bracketology would justify such laziness by the people actually picking the bracket.
If it's too much work for the humans have an algo pick the brackets. "Games after Thursday don't count because it's too much work" is just super, super weak.
its not laziness...they literally are working on seeding that Friday and Saturday and putting them in regions.....conference tourney finals on Saturday in the acc, sec, big east will NOT EFFECT seeding...its as simple as that
too bad.
they already have 12-15 contingency brackets....they are all but bringing their 37 at larges when they walk in that door on Wednesday. Accept it and move on...there may be some at the margins stuff that could happen thursday or friday but expecting some major shift isnt going to happen
its one or 2 games..get over it
also stop overreacting to one game, i am glad the committee is even keeled...and beyond that the NET and metrics are not updated in real time so there is a lag period until about 8am the next morning
Moving back to the point of this thread - the reality is besides the fact that the chance of us winning the next 6 games rounds to zero, on top of that, the chance of some other team (any other team) also getting hot doesn’t round to zero.
Take Georgia for instance - 16-11. Not in the field right now but if they get to 19 they’d be ahead of us without question. Clean profile. Just one example. Having looked at their resume - I can’t help but wonder how they end up getting 6 loss teams like Grand Canyon to fly across the country to play them in Atlanta while we travel to Kennesaw and play legit neutral games against Princeton. Sigh.
Take Georgia for instance - 16-11. Not in the field right now but if they get to 19 they’d be ahead of us without question. Clean profile. Just one example. Having looked at their resume - I can’t help but wonder how they end up getting 6 loss teams like Grand Canyon to fly across the country to play them in Atlanta while we travel to Kennesaw and play legit neutral games against Princeton. Sigh.
As he said - it’s not one game. The crazy scenerio presented was that we’d win the next 6 straight games - so it would be 4 games in the tournament they’d be ignoring where we’d go 3-1 in neutral games against BIG teams to finish 20-15.
Looking closer at the extended bubble, it actually seems to me that it would still be a long shot even if those games mattered because even at that we’d need every team currently ahead of us on that bubble (it’s a lot of teams) to do poorly the rest of the way.
Exactly. And Georgia is just one of many examples which is why even if those games counted 20-15 probably won’t cut it.
You can't make a resume if you don't have one at the end of the regular season
I just glanced at 2022 A&M FWIW and they were only #47 in WAB. Four (!) Q3 losses. One of their three wins in the conference tourney was a Q2. Net #43.
I'm not sure that is as strong evidence for the conference tourney not counting as it is made out to be. That's pretty borderline anyway.
Also, the argument about not wanting to make contingency brackets falls apart a bit considering they needed an A&M contingency bracket ANYWAY given they were in the finals.
I'm not sure that is as strong evidence for the conference tourney not counting as it is made out to be. That's pretty borderline anyway.
Also, the argument about not wanting to make contingency brackets falls apart a bit considering they needed an A&M contingency bracket ANYWAY given they were in the finals.
Another example was Va Tech seeded 13th after winning ACC tourney but arguably many thought were an at large sinch when they made the finals
Vandy perhaps in the A&M year i think reached the semis and won 10 of 11 before losing to A&M and finished 20-14
Were not even last 4 out
Sure you can, if you are only ~1 game short of where you need to be anyway.
An 18-13 Rutgers with the Princeton game back is on the right side of the bubble.
This one also a bad argument for "no contingency backets" because they needed the contingency anyway. They were already forced to consider that game, it wouldn't have been any more difficult to seed them 11th.
Er.. I just looked it up and they were an 11 seed.
Yes, if you are in at 18-13 then 17-14 is only 1 game out. You aren't "creating a resume" you can easily move from 1 game out to in over the span of 4 games.. if those games count.
For fun let’s say Rutgers finishes 17-14.. wins 3 in the tourney and ends at 20-15. Does the committee factor in that Dylan missed a handful of big ten games?
They supposedly can't be assed to factor the games themselves so injuries on top of that seems a stretch lol.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Basketball Rutgers Basketball will hire a GM, who would you want to see in that role?- Latest: RUSCFORMERLYRULOU
-
