If you are in doubt …
- Thread starter Randal7
- Start date
Not a single thing in that list matters to the committee. The NCAA tournamentis not a tournament of the best 68 teams in the country. They don't give a fig about Ron and Geo. Tournament teams beaten is not an actual metric.
More critical we have what it takes to win…
1. A guy with cool hair - RHJ or Caleb
2. A guy that everyone wants to hate and we love - Paul
3. An incredible athlete big guy - Cliff
4. The cagey vet - Geo
5. The bench guy who looks like he can’t play and drains 3 / dunk - Dean
6. A NBA player - RHJ or Cliff
7. The unheralded coach every one loves
this kind of checks all the key boxes when you watch those teams that pop into the tourney now and again.
1. A guy with cool hair - RHJ or Caleb
2. A guy that everyone wants to hate and we love - Paul
3. An incredible athlete big guy - Cliff
4. The cagey vet - Geo
5. The bench guy who looks like he can’t play and drains 3 / dunk - Dean
6. A NBA player - RHJ or Cliff
7. The unheralded coach every one loves
this kind of checks all the key boxes when you watch those teams that pop into the tourney now and again.
Is this literally your first year following college basketball?
The automic qualifiers from the bottom conferences aren't better than the first 4 out
?! They don’t give a fig about Ron and geo? So the biggest money making event for the NCAA and they don’t give a fig about 2 bonafide stars? Not even 1 fig?
Rutgers is absolutely IN right now. 12 conference wins was the goal. We got them. Go and have fun in the tourney without worrying about anything else. Seeding and all that other stuff will take care of itself.
Ron and Geo are not bonafide stars in the sense of the NCAA tournament. Maybe Ron could’ve been had he consistently taken more shots and taken more shots down the stretch of games over his career.
overall irrelevant in our tourney chances
Is this a serious post? Bonafide what now? WE love Ron and Geo but they aren't big national names. Harper a little bit maybe because of his game winning shot against Purdue. Also, no the committee does not care about "bonafide stars" whatever that even means.
You sound like you’re one of those, as the scientologists say, one of those “suppressive people” Salvi. Why you gotta be so glum chum?
Yeah an I’m not even sure the “WE” love Ron stuff is true; relatively speaking he seems to be glossed over all the time and when discussing performance and impact. Though I’m sure he’s appreciated at some other level
So… what exactly are you and mr Salvi saying then? Are you saying we ARE NOT making the tournament as of right now?
I don’t want to speak for salvi but I think the general idea is geo and Ron are not national stars and as individuals they don’t have an impact beyond the overall team performance on Rutgers getting into the tournament or not
but Johnathon Warriner says VCU has better metrics
note they are just 1-3 vs teams in the field while RU is 7-5
note they are just 1-3 vs teams in the field while RU is 7-5
I think the best argument is we have 5 Top 20 wins, according to the graphic during the game there are only about 6 teams with more than that.
Scary but the committee could be made up of guys like him
So, to be very clear, you are saying:
1) geo and Ron are not national stars, and
2) the ncaa doesn’t care AT ALL about their profile as it relates to their including or excluding Rutgers from the tournament
You ARE NOT opining on the original post, which is Rutgers is in the tournament. To that, you have no comment
What hurts our resume, and confuses general public at times, is the little number next to teams awarded by media types like James Kratch tell us less about a teams strength than the net efficiency metrics do, even if they both have their own flaws. And the little W or L next to score, tells us less about the two teams than the net efficiency and margin of victory does, though of course ultimately is all that matters.
The ncaa could leave Rutgers out we’ll see how the bubble goes next week. I think they’ll get if they win a tournament game personally. If they don’t then idk but hope they do. Others like BAC know better I defer to them. And Ron and Geo will not have anything to do with it beyond their performance on the court either way it ends up.
So, you essentially “don’t know” whether they make the tournament with no addition wins. And yet you write very strongly above.
we could make this fun with a little gentleman’s bet.
if Rutgers loses their big ten tournament game and makes the tournament - you mail
Or Venmo me $5 for a beer.
if Rutgers loses their big ten tournament game and misses the tournament - I Mail you $5 for a beer.
If Rutgers wins >= 1 game in the big ten tournament then we push (we both win).
Salvi I’m happy to make this wager with you too
Sure find me next week. Hopefully we win. There’s a lot of unknowns to make a bet but gambling is fun
Question: Is it easier for a team to put up higher efficiency numbers when playing weaker competition? If the answer is yes, then it is not a valid means of comparing teams that have played differing level of opposition.
That’s exactly what the NET does; it takes into account quality of wins and adjusts the efficiency rating based on strengths of opponent. Like that’s exactly what the two components of the NET are.
I think right now we're in Dayton. I think we can miss the tourney if we get the 5th seed and lose to one of the low seeds.
efficiency metrics really do not tell the tale.....see Wisconsin this year, Rutgers this year.
and inflating schools like Houston, Loyola, San Fran and Va Tech...deeply flawed
This is the dumbest argument ever. They are higher on metrics' because they play crappy teams.
Curious what you mean by that as it relates to RU and Wisconsin. Do you mean Rutgers and Wisconsin have better records than their net efficiency says and their records are more indicative of how good they are or do you mean Rutgers and Wisconsin are not as good as their records are but have been on the lucky end of close game variance beyond what is normally expected?
i dont give a shit about how lucky a team is or how efficient they are or predictive ratings
Wisconsin is 20 in the NET and 16-4 in Q1/2 games
Houston is 3 and they dont have a win over a tourney team and are 1-4 in quad 1
Wisconsin is 20 in the NET and 16-4 in Q1/2 games
Houston is 3 and they dont have a win over a tourney team and are 1-4 in quad 1
How does it do that? Is it a secret formula?
To be clear, I am a HUGE skeptic of a system that has Houston as the third team in the country when they have beaten..... ? So was the committee in their initial 16 team release with Houston MIA.
If you don’t give a shit then I think you’re leaving relevant information outside your analysis. Generally. Also, Houston not being as good as their NET indicates can be true while Wisconsin not being as good as their NET indicates can also be true. For different reasons, as we’ve suggested.
i am not much on stats as part of the game. its obvious whatever is being done is highly flawed no matter how you look at it. Too many outliers in both directions.
You do realize the committee not having Houston in their initial 16 team release is an example of them using the NET correctly - as a sorting tool - and not as a metric indicating team strength.
I think if you Google NET rankings explained you’ll have all your answers.
Is it so hard to accept the premise that the NET sees things a human can’t see and a human sees things the NET can’t see? Hence why both are used and the NET is only a sorting tool.
