OOC SOS is an Incomplete, Nonsense Stat

[fischy5000]

Am I missing something? Does our 41 overall SOS not already incorporate the 300 something OOC SOS?

 

[fischy5000]

And the rigidity of these quads is also a flaw. The fact that seton hall could drop from quad 2 to quad 3 by a single game and that have so much influence on other schools…or any other on the line situations. The fact that a committee could say Team A would potentially get in if random school they played was ranked 150 vs 151 (made up ranking) is just dumb to me.

 

[jordkap]

Am I missing something? Does our 41 overall SOS not already incorporate the 300 something OOC SOS?

It does, but playing middle of Tulane or Ohio instead of Central Connecticut State apparently matters enough.

 

[The RUT]

No need to swap out Temple for Gonzaga unless you assume we'll never beat Temple.
That's the wrong logic.

If we had actually beat Temple and it didn't matter then you upgrade Temple (higher chance of losing but winning looks better).

The first step is actually winning. Then upgrade if having a clean resume doesn't work.

It's not worth the risk though. That's the point.

If you have an 80% chance of losing vs Gonzaga, but a 80% chance of winning vs Temple, you schedule Gonzaga.

Why? Because these percentages are not valued the same. The 80% of winning vs Temple, doesn't help you, and the 20% of losing kills you.

The 80% of losing vs Gonzaga doesn't hurt you, and the 20% of winning secures an NCAA bid.

Bad losses impact your resume more than anything else, so just don't schedule any. Problem solved.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

and our conference schedule makes up for it.

I would buy this argument if the numbers supported it, but they simply dont.

Richie tweeted it, but here's the complete SOS for the teams in questions:

Mississippi State - 38
Rutgers - 41
Arizona State - 55
Nevada - 70!
Pitt - 91!!!!!!!!

Don't talk about SOS and then give a team like Pitt a bid.

For the record, I do think the OOC should be improved. I think we should play all blue bloods and tell the NCAA to eat shit. But of course, no blue blood is going to schedule a home and home with us because they won't want to play at the RAC.

Guess we'll have to play @Duke and then they'll return the game for us @msg where they get half the gate and the committee will consider it a home game lmfao.

It's a joke. If the SOS is your argument, remain consistent. Rutgers had a better SOS than ASU, Nevada, and Pitt. Period.

Whats the definition of insanity? Again its okay to disagree with how much the committee values it but they value it! Since they value it you have to acquiesce

 

[The RUT]

Whats the definition of insanity? Again its okay to disagree with how much the committee values it but they value it! Since they value it you have to acquiesce

Correct, it's insanity.

Our schedule was just as bad last year, and the results were worse lmao.

We did the same thing last year (except worse) and got a different result. So yes, insanity. This was a B1G cap 110%.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Imagine if we didn’t get assigned Miami on the road and got Louisville instead.

This is why we need to proactively schedule tougher to mitigate the risk we don’t controlz

We wouldn’t have lost to UofL. We’d have been 20-13 and possibly in. Just saying…

 

[fischy5000]

It's not worth the risk though. That's the point.

If you have an 80% chance of losing vs Gonzaga, but a 80% chance of winning vs Temple, you schedule Gonzaga.

Why? Because these percentages are not valued the same. The 80% of winning vs Temple, doesn't help you, and the 20% of losing kills you.

The 80% of losing vs Gonzaga doesn't hurt you, and the 20% of winning secures an NCAA bid.

Bad losses impact your resume more than anything else, so just don't schedule any. Problem solved.

but you know just when RU gets all those top blue bloods on the schedule, the same committee will decide 'we really care about total victories now' so we're taking the 22-10 team over the 19-14 team because they just won more. haha.

 

[The RUT]

but you know just when RU gets all those top blue bloods on the schedule, the same committee will decide 'we really care about total victories now' so we're taking the 22-10 team over the 19-14 team because they just won more. haha.

exactly, and then we go to twitter and light up the NCAA and feel better about ourselves.

The whole thing is a joke. We were on the bubble the past few years and this year it was our turn to get the shaft.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

exactly, and then we go to twitter and light up the NCAA and feel better about ourselves.

The whole thing is a joke. We were on the bubble the past few years and this year it was our turn to get the shaft.

Lets also be real, the big ten kinda stinks. Hasnt won a natty in decades for a reason. So while metrics might say big ten is good, lack of performance in march for decades im sure weighs on the committees mind. Therefore its imperative to test yourself against other conference and show what you can do

 

[biazza38]

Lets also be real, the big ten kinda stinks. Hasnt won a natty in decades for a reason. So while metrics might say big ten is good, lack of performance in march for decades im sure weighs on the committees mind. Therefore its imperative to test yourself against other conference and show what you can do

The B1G is a weird conference. I don’t get it. Not great at the top, but there is definitely depth. They perform well in out of conference play. And then teams like Illinois and Purdue let everyone down as 1 seeds

 

[The RUT]

Lets also be real, the big ten kinda stinks. Hasnt won a natty in decades for a reason. So while metrics might say big ten is good, lack of performance in march for decades im sure weighs on the committees mind. Therefore its imperative to test yourself against other conference and show what you can do

Your logic is flawed.

Is the quality of the B1G not based off metrics across the country?

Purdues rank isn’t because their name is Purdue. They also played an OOC schedule. As did the rest of the league.

It’s not human opinion. It’s statistical fact.

It’s collective data that proves the B1G is a top conference.

Watch the B1G run shit in March this year.

Our overall SOS was just fine. They just wanted to cap the conference and we were an easy out because of that glaringly bad number.

 

[bigbirdRU]

Lets also be real, the big ten kinda stinks. Hasnt won a natty in decades for a reason. So while metrics might say big ten is good, lack of performance in march for decades im sure weighs on the committees mind. Therefore its imperative to test yourself against other conference and show what you can do

Seth Davis swears the committee does not care about conference. He said that’s why there will be 9 big ten teams (he was wrong of course). I agree with the March let downs but all we can do is follow the metrics, and metrics say big ten is #2 behind b12.

 

[RUChoppin]

No need to swap out Temple for Gonzaga unless you assume we'll never beat Temple.
That's the wrong logic.

If we had actually beat Temple and it didn't matter then you upgrade Temple (higher chance of losing but winning looks better).

The first step is actually winning. Then upgrade if having a clean resume doesn't work.

It's risk vs reward.

There's no reward for beating Temple, but there is high risk in playing them. There's high reward for beating Gonzaga, but little risk of it looking bad on the resume.

 

[Degaz-RU]

Don't have time to read the entire thread, so apologize if I'm repeating what others have said.

I agree that "OOC SOS" is a dumb metric. Unfortunately, however, the committee has proven that they simply want to see P6 teams play stronger OOC schedules (and not lose to the sub-200 teams that we do play).

Like it or not, Pike has to listen to the committee's message and schedule stronger. Period.

 

[RacPac12]

Seems like going forward there is no point in Q2 or Q3 OOC. I hope we see something like this next year assuming we aren't doing a holiday tourney

Gonzaga (N)
Seton Hall (A)
Wake Forest (A)
Uconn (H)
Auburn (H)

7 Q4 (H)

If you go 9-3 here and find 10 wins in B1G that gets you 19-13 which should be good enough? IDK just no more Q3 games that we can lose

 

[koleszar]

is saying that your whole body of work should be thrown out because one of your starters goes down rational and sane

welcome to the ncaa committee

But why? A team like Neveda can schedule a tough OOC(and lose) and then play 18 games in conference against mostly dogsh*t and get more credit for that? Splicing the season up like the committee did, no conference tourney, heavier empahasis on last eight and OOC is just rationale for a poor decision. A lot of tried and true metrics where Rutgers was clearly ahead on got thrown out the window in favor of the eye test and 3 months ago?

 

[RUChoppin]

The message being sent, though, is you need to schedule other P6 schools and "top" mid majors, not "competitive" (76-150) mid majors. The P6 schools all just playing each other and feasting on low majors can result in mid majors being left out in the cold.

 

[RU84]

Preach man......these knuckleheads just want to say RU is in a OOC tournament in some hotel makeshift arena in the Virgin Islands or Cancun, not because it's relevant to the selection committee. There is no 1 factor, there are 6 to 7 and they randomly select which one they want to apply.

The bottom line is RU got hosed....instead of saying that, the OOC superheroes who want to play Princeton at Jadwin or fly 4000 miles for 1 game at Spokane Washington and Gonzaga are insane.

The bottom line is the bubble is a tough place to live for a team like Rutgers. Regardless of our resume relative to the Nevada’s of the world, the committee seems to look for arbitrary reasons to keep us out. Like I said to my kids when they got cut from teams and less deserving kids made it, you have to get off the bubble or you open yourself up to all these other factors. Note to self, control what you can control so you minimize/eliminate arbitrary, subjective and biased elements. Don’t lose a 10 point lead with a minute left in Minnesota for one.

 

[MiloTalon13]

The message being sent, though, is you need to schedule other P6 schools and "top" mid majors, not "competitive" (76-150) mid majors. The P6 schools all just playing each other and feasting on low majors can result in mid majors being left out in the cold.

The irony of this is that it seems exactly like the OPPOSITE of what the NCAA would want to encourage
Imagine if all the P5 schools played all their OOC games against each other (F the BE)?
They might as well leave the NCAA and do their own thing