ADVERTISEMENT

If Rutgers goes 19-15, I think we get a bid.

fluoxetine said:
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.
Click to expand...
My bad...i knew there was something funky with them and went back and checked...they were an 11 seed BUT actually on the seed list were behind 3 of the first four schools if that makes sense. That to me indicate they were not valued and only were getting in on a contingency bracket

www.cbssports.com

March Madness 2022: Committee reveals official NCAA Tournament bracket seed list from 1-68

A look at the NCAA Men's Basketball Selection Committee's ranking of the entire tournament field
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
fluoxetine said:
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.
Click to expand...
One game is a big difference right on the bubble

It will be for a 17-14 OSU team and they will need to win their 1st big 10 tourney gane
 
One thing I’ll say is if we can win some games to get on the bubble I’d like our chances. The basketball world knows we have to lottery picks abs wants to see them.
 
There is no chance because we lost to Princeton (Q3 Neutral) and Kennessaw (Q3 lucky not Q4). There’s no erasing those when there are only enough games in the scenario of not winning the BTT to go 20-15. 20-15 with 2 of those losses to Princeton and KSU is NOT an at large resume period, full stop, so there is mathematically no choice but to win the BTT even if we finish the regular season under .500 (likely)
 
  • Like
Reactions: T2Kplus20, bac2therac and RUBlackout
bac2therac said:
Providence made a strong run in Big East tourney reaching the semi finals and was left out with 6 quad 1 wins
Click to expand...

Meh. Not really. Beating Georgetown last year meant nothing. So what they really did was beat the one good team they had already beaten once in the season again before losing (Creighton). That also seems to be a bit of a “thing”. The committee isn’t usually impressed by a stack of wins against the same team if you don’t have much else. Match up considerations are real.

Virginia Tech might not have had a single win over the field until the ACC tournament. They actually deserved only an 11 seed inclusive of those 2 big wins in the conf tournament. Had they played weaker teams along the path they might’ve been a 13.

All this said - after glancing at the bubble, I agree with you that 20-15 would still be a major long shot. But not because 3 of the wins wouldn’t count. Even with them mattering, I think we’d need too much help not only from the current bubble but also the fringe bubble ahead of us. Too many of those teams will collect wins simply by playing eachother.
 
ScarletDave said:
There is no chance because we lost to Princeton (Q3 Neutral) and Kennessaw (Q3 lucky not Q4). There’s no erasing those when there are only enough games in the scenario of not winning the BTT to go 20-15. 20-15 with 2 of those losses to Princeton and KSU is NOT an at large resume period, full stop, so there is mathematically no choice but to win the BTT even if we finish the regular season under .500 (likely)
Click to expand...
Kennesaw is only five ranking spots from Q2. You're letting the name blind you, it's obviously not a game you want to lose but on the hierarchy of "bad losses" it is not much.

Last year these teams got an at-large bid with 2+ Q3+ losses:
Florida Atlantic (1 Q3 neutral vs #191 Temple, 2 Q4 vs #164 Bryant, at #246 Gulf Coast)
Texas A&M (4 Q3 losses vs #94 LSU, vs #90 Ole Miss, at #202 Vanderbilt, vs #115 Arkansas)
South Carolina (vs #100 Georgia, vs #94 LSU)

If we win the next three games and every other game goes as predicted by Torvik, we would get the 10 seed. Our path would be
Minnesota
Oregon
Michigan
Maryland (proj)
Michigan St (proj)

---
At 2-1 we would be 19-15
Q1: 7-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 61
WAB (proj): 58

Pretty clearly OUT imo (Bart projects that as first team out)
---

---
At 3-1, 20-15
Q1: 8-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 56
WAB (proj): 50

Bart projects that as a 10 seed in the last four byes
---

At 4-1, 21-15
Q1 9-12
Q2 4-1
Q3 2-2
Q4 6-0

NET (proj): 52
WAB (proj): 45

Bart projects that as a 9 seed
 
  • Like
Reactions: RRRRUUUU and DHajekRC84
fluoxetine said:
Kennesaw is only five ranking spots from Q2. You're letting the name blind you, it's obviously not a game you want to lose but on the hierarchy of "bad losses" it is not much.

Last year these teams got an at-large bid with 2+ Q3+ losses:
Florida Atlantic (1 Q3 neutral vs #191 Temple, 2 Q4 vs #164 Bryant, at #246 Gulf Coast)
Texas A&M (4 Q3 losses vs #94 LSU, vs #90 Ole Miss, at #202 Vanderbilt, vs #115 Arkansas)
South Carolina (vs #100 Georgia, vs #94 LSU)

If we win the next three games and every other game goes as predicted by Torvik, we would get the 10 seed. Our path would be
Minnesota
Oregon
Michigan
Maryland (proj)
Michigan St (proj)

---
At 2-1 we would be 19-15
Q1: 7-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 61
WAB (proj): 58

Pretty clearly OUT imo (Bart projects that as first team out)
---

---
At 3-1, 20-15
Q1: 8-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 56
WAB (proj): 50

Bart projects that as a 10 seed in the last four byes
---

At 4-1, 21-15
Q1 9-12
Q2 4-1
Q3 2-2
Q4 6-0

NET (proj): 52
WAB (proj): 45

Bart projects that as a 9 seed
Click to expand...
Dang, that's impressive work, Fluox...
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
fluoxetine said:
Kennesaw is only five ranking spots from Q2. You're letting the name blind you, it's obviously not a game you want to lose but on the hierarchy of "bad losses" it is not much.

Last year these teams got an at-large bid with 2+ Q3+ losses:
Florida Atlantic (1 Q3 neutral vs #191 Temple, 2 Q4 vs #164 Bryant, at #246 Gulf Coast)
Texas A&M (4 Q3 losses vs #94 LSU, vs #90 Ole Miss, at #202 Vanderbilt, vs #115 Arkansas)
South Carolina (vs #100 Georgia, vs #94 LSU)

If we win the next three games and every other game goes as predicted by Torvik, we would get the 10 seed. Our path would be
Minnesota
Oregon
Michigan
Maryland (proj)
Michigan St (proj)

---
At 2-1 we would be 19-15
Q1: 7-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 61
WAB (proj): 58

Pretty clearly OUT imo (Bart projects that as first team out)
---

---
At 3-1, 20-15
Q1: 8-12
Q2: 4-1
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0

NET (proj): 56
WAB (proj): 50

Bart projects that as a 10 seed in the last four byes
---

At 4-1, 21-15
Q1 9-12
Q2 4-1
Q3 2-2
Q4 6-0

NET (proj): 52
WAB (proj): 45

Bart projects that as a 9 seed
Click to expand...
Bart lol stop it..its pipe dream stuff

Bart is totally worthless for this exercise

In addition the consolidation this season is showing less Q3 losses on resumes I'm looking at

Stop saying Kennesaw State isnt all that bad a loss.

Rutgers has zero non conference wins of note
 
bac2therac said:
Bart lol stop it..its pipe dream stuff
Click to expand...
Yes.
bac2therac said:
Bart is totally worthless for this exercise
Click to expand...
Eh. The model is certainly worse than something like your analysis, but it can run any hypothetical and evaluate it in a completely consistent manner. Teamrankings also gives us a 94% chance of a bid if we achieve 20 wins (and 45% at 19 wins).
bac2therac said:
In addition the consolidation this season is showing less Q3 losses on resumes I'm looking at
Click to expand...
That's interesting.
bac2therac said:
Stop saying Kennesaw State isnt all that bad a loss.
Click to expand...
No.

Any Q3 loss is a bad loss but it's barely in Q3 and the post I was responding to said we are "lucky it isn't Q4" which is nonsense. The Princeton loss is far worse.
bac2therac said:
Rutgers has zero non conference wins of note
Click to expand...
I don't care what conference our wins come from.

We don't have any wins of note period but the hypotheticals discussed involve us running off 4 more Q1 wins all of which would be in the upper half of Q1.
 
fluoxetine said:
Yes.

Eh. The model is certainly worse than something like your analysis, but it can run any hypothetical and evaluate it in a completely consistent manner. Teamrankings also gives us a 94% chance of a bid if we achieve 20 wins (and 45% at 19 wins).

That's interesting.

No.

Any Q3 loss is a bad loss but it's barely in Q3 and the post I was responding to said we are "lucky it isn't Q4" which is nonsense. The Princeton loss is far worse.

I don't care what conference our wins come from.

We don't have any wins of note period but the hypotheticals discussed involve us running off 4 more Q1 wins all of which would be in the upper half of Q1.
Click to expand...
Bart treats Rutgers in a vaccuum right? Every other game falls in line and no bid steelers or upsets pro and con. It simply cannot predict ncaa tourney spots let alone seeding and Rutgers isn't getting a 9 seed with 15 losses

Does Bart use NCAA selection criteria in its model?

Keep saying non conference doesn't matter when its a specific criteria and Rutgers went 0-2 vs Princeton/Kennesaw while its best win of Notre Dame is straddling Q2/3
 
bac2therac said:
Bart treats Rutgers in a vaccuum right? Every other game falls in line and no bid steelers or upsets pro and con.
Click to expand...
Basically but I believe it uses the projected records which basically means the "expected" number of upsets, not zero upsets. It does assume no bid stealers yes.

bac2therac said:
It simply cannot predict ncaa tourney spots let alone seeding and Rutgers isn't getting a 9 seed with 15 losses
Click to expand...
No but maybe a 10?
 
RidgewoodKnight13 said:
If Rutgers wins the next 3 they end the season on a 5 game win streak with two more Q1A wins.

Win two more in the b1g tourney and factor in a weak bubble, Harper not at full strength for 7 games and I think we go to Dayton.
Click to expand...

If Rutgers wants to get an at-large bid with 14+ losses, it needs to schedule better in the non-conference. Teams that load up with Q3/Q4 games don't get the benefit of the doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mholinko and bac2therac
bac2therac said:
The 10 seeds were play ins

Drake was AQ at 10..also Nevada

So Texas A&M was in the grouping of last 8 or so in..I don't have the seed list offhand
Click to expand...
Fair enough, that's kind of unusual though yes? Generally play-ins have been 11s.

MiamiWolv said:
If Rutgers wants to get an at-large bid with 14+ losses, it needs to schedule better in the non-conference. Teams that load up with Q3/Q4 games don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Non-conf schedule wasn't all that weak this year. Other years yes.
 
MiamiWolv said:
If Rutgers wants to get an at-large bid with 14+ losses, it needs to schedule better in the non-conference. Teams that load up with Q3/Q4 games don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
This

Not all 14 loss records are created equal

Why do you think Tom izzo schedules ridiculously hard every year when he doesn’t necessarily need to

Two reasons… 1) prep his team for conference play which they always seem to succeed at and 2) give himself a buffer if either non conference or conference play don’t go well but the other does from a resume stand point

Michigan state always has a bullet proof resume from being excluded even in their more precarious seasons and there are other programs like this

Future reference for Rutgers or any team for that matter trying to understand scheduling is not to overload on soft games with no upside and leave yourself little opportunity to build meaningful wins before conference play

Rutgers took a step forward with the NIL tournament but ultimately lost both games of note
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
Obviously not all 14 loss records are created equal but Rutgers will have a top 30 SOS and will have played (esp in these hypotheticals where there are extra tournament games) a shitload of Q1 games.

Rutgers did not have a weak schedule this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goru7
fluoxetine said:
Fair enough, that's kind of unusual though yes? Generally play-ins have been 11s.



Non-conf schedule wasn't all that weak this year. Other years yes.
Click to expand...
I'll agree there..the non conference sos passable i think in 150s but still nothing to write home about

I don't like the idea of playing in Vegas next year because we won't be equipped to play early at a high level. If anything screams 300 schedule it's next year. Pike needs the wins
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAHWAYBOB and fluoxetine
MiamiWolv said:
If Rutgers wants to get an at-large bid with 14+ losses, it needs to schedule better in the non-conference. Teams that load up with Q3/Q4 games don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Not even better in a quality of opposition sense, but just smarter. Replace KSU and Princeton with Fairleigh Dickinson and Coppin St. and we're in a much better spot, even if we turned in comparably poor performances.

Understanding that NC SOS is (stupidly) a metric for the committee, you can also replace KSU and Princeton with an aforementioned doormat + like Baylor at a neutral site and almost completely eliminate the possibility of a bad loss while keeping the same SOS.

It’s stuff like this where I think the right GM hire could be super helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
I mean in hindsight drop the Kennesaw and Princeton games and the Vegas tourney, schedule Coppin St, Arkansas Pine Bluff, and Mississippi Valley St at home and at least we would be in position where if we won out the regular season we would be on the bubble but you gotta win the games that are actually on the schedule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
fluoxetine said:
I mean in hindsight drop the Kennesaw and Princeton games and the Vegas tourney, schedule Coppin St, Arkansas Pine Bluff, and Mississippi Valley St at home and at least we would be in position where if we won out the regular season we would be on the bubble but you gotta win the games that are actually on the schedule.
Click to expand...
Not the Vegas games, just KSU/PU. It’s tremendously rare for a P5 school to play a Q3/Q4, mid/low major team away from home, and if they do, very often it comes via an MTE.

In the NET era, Pike is 0-6 in Q3/4 games at neutral/away sites against mid/low major opposition. We keep doing this every year and it continues to be a completely self-inflicted black mark on our NCAA tournament profile.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Angry
Reactions: BIGRUBIGDBIGredmachine, bac2therac and fluoxetine
PhillyRU said:
.

In the NET era, Pike is 0-6 in Q3/4 games at neutral/away sites against mid/low major opposition. We keep doing this every year and it continues to be a completely self-inflicted black mark on our NCAA tournament profile.
Click to expand...

Serious question- is RU aware of this? That’s insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhillyRU
PhillyRU said:
Not even better in a quality of opposition sense, but just smarter. Replace KSU and Princeton with Fairleigh Dickinson and Coppin St. and we're in a much better spot, even if we turned in comparably poor performances.

Understanding that NC SOS is (stupidly) a metric for the committee, you can also replace KSU and Princeton with an aforementioned doormat + like Baylor at a neutral site and almost completely eliminate the possibility of a bad loss while keeping the same SOS.

It’s stuff like this where I think the right GM hire could be super helpful.
Click to expand...
Agree with this.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: bac2therac
fluoxetine said:
I mean in hindsight drop the Kennesaw and Princeton games and the Vegas tourney, schedule Coppin St, Arkansas Pine Bluff, and Mississippi Valley St at home and at least we would be in position where if we won out the regular season we would be on the bubble but you gotta win the games that are actually on the schedule.
Click to expand...
Maryland has a 324 non conference sos i believe
 
bac2therac said:
Maryland has a 324 non conference sos i believe
Click to expand...
If you do that you need to clean up in the conference slate then … and more importantly win the RIGHT conference games

If Maryland had that schedule and 7 of their b10 wins were Washington, usc, Iowa, Minnesota, northwestern and Rutgers it wouldn’t be any kind of ncaa resume

The argument to schedule all cupcakes in non conference puts huge pressure to perform top 5-6 in the league standings
 
PhillyRU said:
I have no idea lol, I posted the link below back in December, but only a handful of Power 5 teams schedule these types of games a year. Rutgers does it almost every year, and twice in 2024-25.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/schedule.286930/

It’s absolutely baffling, and it makes me a lot less sympathetic to the whining about NIL.
Click to expand...

thing is - I dont necessarily have a strong opinion whether we should go the MSU route and schedule a bunch of tough OOC games OR whether we should continue to try to pad the schedule with cupcakes to get the win total up. I am sure legit arguments can be made on either side.

but whatever you do: have a solid strategy that WORKS for your program.

scheduling Q3/ Q4 teams away from home is assinine just on its face. but when you go 0-6 in such games over a number of years .... honestly that is criminal mismanagement of your scheduling/ proof that there is no real STRATEGY in place. not good. not smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mholinko and PhillyRU
Doesn't the selection committee work in specific ways.. the automatics (with a chance some of them are yet to be decided), then the pool of sure-in top seeds.. then the sure-ins.. then in the final days they are adjusting.. and we have seen many cases where a team they identified as a top 4 top seed does not get moved even if they lose their conference tourney. To me that reads like the committeee made the decision days ago and don't want to revisit.

I suggest this area of discussion as a way of saying I also think the committee eliminates teams from discussion very early. I think even if we make a deep Big Ten Tourney run and look great, I think the committee will already have eliminated us. And if we pull off a miracle and win the B10 Tourney.. I think they just eliminate teh last Big Ten team they had as IN and replace them with us.

I don't think they will have a pool of teams where they say.. well, they are not in now.. not even in the first 4 or next 4 out.. but lets see what they do in their tourneys. I doubt such a collection of teams to discuss will exist. But I really hope to see this theory tested and found false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
Doesn't the selection committee work in specific ways.. the automatics (with a chance some of them are yet to be decided), then the pool of sure-in top seeds.. then the sure-ins.. then in the final days they are adjusting.. and we have seen many cases where a team they identified as a top 4 top seed does not get moved even if they lose their conference tourney. To me that reads like the committeee made the decision days ago and don't want to revisit.

I suggest this area of discussion as a way of saying I also think the committee eliminates teams from discussion very early. I think even if we make a deep Big Ten Tourney run and look great, I think the committee will already have eliminated us. And if we pull off a miracle and win the B10 Tourney.. I think they just eliminate teh last Big Ten team they had as IN and replace them with us.

I don't think they will have a pool of teams where they say.. well, they are not in now.. not even in the first 4 or next 4 out.. but lets see what they do in their tourneys. I doubt such a collection of teams to discuss will exist. But I really hope to see this theory tested and found false.
Click to expand...
This...good assessment

Now the committee can totally do a flip but based on TRENDS over the last decade your assessment is correct.

You can't make a resume in a weekend. They aren't reserving a spot for a latecomer

They will reward a team right on the cusp based on a game or 2 in conference tourneys but you have to already be in that last group of 4
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUbacker
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
And if we pull off a miracle and win the B10 Tourney.. I think they just eliminate teh last Big Ten team they had as IN and replace them with us.
Click to expand...

It’s all reasonable except this part; they would replace the last team not the last BIG TEN team.

I don’t think you are necessarily wrong (in fact you are likely right) but that speaks to the committee not doing its job properly. All games that are supposed to count should count equally, regardless of whether they are played at times that make it inconvenient for the committee to consider them.
 
ScarletDave said:
There is no chance because we lost to Princeton (Q3 Neutral) and Kennessaw (Q3 lucky not Q4). There’s no erasing those when there are only enough games in the scenario of not winning the BTT to go 20-15. 20-15 with 2 of those losses to Princeton and KSU is NOT an at large resume period, full stop, so there is mathematically no choice but to win the BTT even if we finish the regular season under .500 (likely)
Click to expand...
Any chance at the NCAA goes out the door with a loss to Kennesaw State. No top 64team would lose to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Plum Street

What a change from 3 years ago - Senior Day

Replies
18
Views
1K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

Bacatology 3/3: NCAA Tournament Analysis

Replies
188
Views
6K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

Bacatology 3/10: NCAA Tournament Analysis

Replies
344
Views
9K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

Bacatology 2/24: NCAA Tournament Analysis

Replies
182
Views
5K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
bac2therac

Bacatology 2/17: 1st 2025 NCAA Tournament Analysis

Replies
91
Views
5K
Men's Basketball
bac2therac
bac2therac
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back