You know how the women's committee operates. No surprise here. Look at the seedings RU was put in the past.
In and Out
- Thread starter BeKnighted
- Start date
What does winning a conference without any top 50 teams prove ? You are describing an awfully unjust process.
Rutgers was a top 40 team based on their record over the course of this season and therefore they deserved to be dancing. It is that simple.
They put themselves in a position to be screwed by the way they collapsed at the end of season.
It isn't right RU was left out but since they put themselves in a position to be left out , it's on the program that they were.
they went 11-7 in their league, RU went 7-9. Oklahoma's worse loss was 88 Little Rock
RU had a couple of bad losses....namely Northwestern at 175, Washington St at 114 and Penn St at 93
these are the kind of things that offset RU having more wins...you take into consideration bad losses
They asked the Selection Chairperson a lot of questions which skirted the issue. I would be interested in her explanation of how Oklahoma at 16-14 with a 1-8 record against the RPI top 50 deserved a berth over us. We may have finished poorly but we were certainly better than they were. Not alleging bias or conspiracy theories but it is difficult to understand.
I guess if we had lost to more Top 50 RPI teams we would have been better off.
I guess if we had lost to more Top 50 RPI teams we would have been better off.
read my post above...bad losses...3 of them...OU worst was still better than RU's 3...remember we had that discussion about Washington State being a bad loss early in the year..ultimately though Northwestern with all the marbles on the line for a 500 finish in league, you just cannot lose to that terrible team
Bac, as you know better than most having put together such a terrific analysis on the men's side, the "bad losses" are only an element in the decision process. One could manipulate anything here and show how much stronger Rutgers was compared to the last 4 teams in. You know that.
You are correct. She didn't say you had to win. That was my point though. If I were on the committee, I would make sure they took into account how many of those games you won - especially when you are a bubble team. They penalized Baylor this year for not playing a tough enough schedule by making them a 2 seed with a record of 31-1 and they are in the same conference as OU. Last year they penalized Maryland for not playing a tough enough schedule. There is an awful lot of subjectivity in the at large selections and in the seedings IMO (the so called procedural bumps).
thats true, I am just giving you reasons that are plausible why they were left out. Its a balance taking into consideration wins vs losses...I see the criteria is different than for the men, so stuff like conference record matters that 7-9 sticks out at us like a sore thumb
I'm disappointed, but I honestly didn't think that we would get in.
As others have mentioned... let's go get #1000 in the WNIT.
As others have mentioned... let's go get #1000 in the WNIT.
There are good reasons to feel Rutgers got the shaft and that's what I think happened.
But the other side of coin probably would show a few reasons why they deserved to be left out.
I'm totally disappointed, but can't claim I'm completely pissed he way this team ended their season. With the way this team played at the end losing 8 of their last 10 regular season games, makes it hard for me to cry foul, even though I feel that way.
I'll just put it: if you put yourself in a position that leaves you vulnerable , that vulnerability will be exploited and you'll usually not get what you're going after.
But the other side of coin probably would show a few reasons why they deserved to be left out.
I'm totally disappointed, but can't claim I'm completely pissed he way this team ended their season. With the way this team played at the end losing 8 of their last 10 regular season games, makes it hard for me to cry foul, even though I feel that way.
I'll just put it: if you put yourself in a position that leaves you vulnerable , that vulnerability will be exploited and you'll usually not get what you're going after.
Not even close. The highest RPI since 2000 to miss the tournament is 17. That was Western Kentucky in 2006.
However, RU was the first team out in terms of RPI.
How could Oklahoma’s conferences record mean so much?
Didn’t help Nebraska on the men’s side
I don't keep track of SOS, but usually there's some unlucky loser team with a great SOS and a terrible record.
(Okay, I just looked at this year, and there were four teams, Indiana, Vanderbilt, and Washington State, had higher SOS than RU and didn't make the tournament.)
All you guys who find ways to defend Rutgers being left out... aren't you tired of the womens' team getting mistreated in the post-season? Seedings, matchups, road games against lesser teams.... our ladies have been screwed over so many times I have lost count.
You can argue they should have won more.. forced the decision.. but they would have been screwed on seeding and travel.. we know this.. we have seen it time and again.
You can argue they should have won more.. forced the decision.. but they would have been screwed on seeding and travel.. we know this.. we have seen it time and again.
different criteria for men and women..women use conference mark as well as other variables
a case could be made that Indiana got screwed too..why should RU go over Indiana..not that much better wins and Indiana finished strong and two games above RU in the Big 10
the bottom line is the team screwed itself..they were 16-2 and basically all they had to do was beat an awful Northwestern on the last game which likely would have put their rpi in the mid 30s at worst as well as eliminating a third bad loss
Indiana: 17-14, RPI 54, 3-9 v. RPI top 50, 9-12 v. RPI top 100
Rutgers: 20-12, RPI 40, 5-6 v. RPI top 50, 11-10 v. RPI top 100
There's not really a good case for the Hoosiers over RU. Basically, RU was better than Indiana in everything but conference record.
The committee repeatedly has said that it doesn't really look at head to head. (I'm sure that it does in some situations - e.g., home and home or 3 games, all won by 1 team - but that's the general rule.)
I think this was the last thread in which I posted, at the end of last season, where I hoped that CVS would get #1000 in the WNIT. Obviously, that didn't happen... but I suppose that it adds some excitement to the early part of the new season!
