"Out" with no Mag. Same logic dictates "In" with JWill?

[bac2therac]

BAc...in the X amount of years you have been following closely has the committee ever changed a part of their criteria and you realize it after the fact, sometimes a few years later.

Did they tell us before hand last 10 didn't matter or announce it after the selection?
Has results from conference play always been nuetered like this? Sorry SweatPea

last 10 not a criteria at all period

now if you are going 2-8 your metrics across the board are dropping, you are accruing bad losses as well....so I have seen schools like Xavier a couple years back and Clemson last year free fall their way out of the tournament

if you are going 8-2 obviously your metrics improve down the stretch. You notch quality wins, etc. So your finish is reflected in your overall profile IMO. Its body of work. At least this year RU has one semi good OOC win at Seton Hall which they havent had and remember SHU did beat UConn. Also RU non conference sos in the 160 range is big improvement over the 300 stuff. RU's profile is relatively clean. Just that loss to Penn State.....but unfortunately that loss to Penn State might be the one that keeps us out.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I know last 10 isnt a criteria....my question was were we forewarned the criteria changed or did they dump it on us after picks were made.

The gist of my question is do we ever know if the committee ever pivots and we get surprises.

 

[RU82]

No. Mag was injured, Williams was suspended. Big difference.

FWIW, the committee didn’t penalize RU for Mag’s injury. What they were saying is that they would have somewhat overlooked our late season collapse IF Mag would be back for the tournament. The W-L record kept us out, not the injury.

I don’t think so. Our resume was stronger than several of the teams they took into the tournament. Objectively speaking, based solely on the metrics, RU should have been in.

Speculation at the time is that the committee was looking for ways to trim down the number of B-G teams in the tournament because they hadn’t done well in recent years. That made more sense than anything about Mag or our late season swoon.

 

[G- RUnit]

This ^^^^

Whole world said we beat Michigan we are in. Revenge game and proving we could win without Mag.

Sure seems like they went outta of their way to shaft us.

Thought we better than a play in game too other year.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Long, long way to go and seriously difficult things to accomplish before any of this matters. I'm hoping to just enjoy the potential run.

 

[ru66]

If we don't go 6-2, there needs to be some MAJOR explaining. Can't expect to beat Purdue at home, but I think we'll give them a game.

The team has everything to play for at this point and they are fully committed to defense. Wonder if Pike pointed to the way PSU played against us. PSU didn't just play tough defense, they went after the ball like it was theirs. We are now seeing next level defense.

JWill makes everyone better by assuming the #1 player role and being a #1 that makes the right decisions with the ball. We've had #1's that didn't make their teammates better.

You know, how the other team plays has alot to do if we win or lose. Even so called bad teams can beat you if they have a good day. They too have scholarship players.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I don’t think so. Our resume was stronger than several of the teams they took into the tournament. Objectively speaking, based solely on the metrics, RU should have been in.

Speculation at the time is that the committee was looking for ways to trim down the number of B-G teams in the tournament because they hadn’t done well in recent years. That made more sense than anything about Mag or our late season swoon.

To you the resume was stronger.....what metrics? don't say NET

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

If we don't go 6-2, there needs to be some MAJOR explaining. Can't expect to beat Purdue at home, but I think we'll give them a game.

This is a crazy statement. People need to always remember that shooting is always very very variable. Yes you have control about the quality of looks you get and give, but at the end of the day it becomes a roll of the dice (not equally weighted) how many shots go in.

You have control of whether you get the horse to water, sometimes you can't control how much it drinks.

 

[biazza38]

I think one of the things everyone is forgetting is this stuff is also very regional. The committee does one or two odd things every year. Keep in mind, they are human.
The committee included 4 mountain west teams last year. The MWC had no business getting 4 in. However, I don’t think they wanted to slight the mid majors. Heck, one of them teams (may have been Nevada or Boise) finished the season with 3 straight quad three losses. There weren’t a lot of mid majors on the bubble and there weren’t a lot of west coast teams getting it. It doesn’t surprise me that they decided not to include a 10th B1G team for a mid major team out west.
The committee needed something to fall back on so they said our OOC schedule was weak. But then when you look at the OOC schedule for the same Mountsin West teams, it was a bunch of quad 3 opponents and not a ton of high major opponents

 

[willisneverrana43]

This is a crazy statement. People need to always remember that shooting is always very very variable. Yes you have control about the quality of looks you get and give, but at the end of the day it becomes a roll of the dice (not equally weighted) how many shots go in. . . .

It's not a roll of the dice, but we do have a roster full of players with at best a shoddy shooting history. I'd love to think that that just disappeared and won't be back. But I know better. The constant needs to be defense and rebounding.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

It's not a roll of the dice, but we do have a roster full of players with at best a shoddy shooting history. I'd love to think that that just disappeared and won't be back. But I know better. The constant needs to be defense and rebounding.

Same 17 3 pointers.....
I think on average we make 6 of them (5 is our 29%)....not 10. Some games we make 4 or 5 and others we make 7 or 8.

Same 21 3 pointers for Wisconsin.....given their looks
On average they make 7....not 5. Some games they make 10.

We played great. What if we went 6-17 and they went 10-21. Now 10-21 would have been really difficult based on the quality of looks they (didnt) get, but it wouldn't be impossible,


We shot 8-9 from FT....what if that is 6 (under our average)
They shot 13-22...what if they shot 16-22 (under their average)
5 point swing right there too

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

To you the resume was stronger.....what metrics? don't say NET

In reflection, I can see how the committee selected some of those teams over us. We thought our elite wins held a lot of relative value, but I think what we learned is that, at least last year, the committee actually placed more value than we thought in metrics that could be like for like in comparing different types of schedules. The MWC types didn’t have many Q1 chances - but they hand plenty of Q2 and Q3 games and did better than we did in those.

Going 2-4 in Q3 and only 500 in Q2-Q3 overall is what held us back. This year we’re a lot better in those metrics. Sure - we may end up 3-10 in Q1 instead of the 4-7 last year but if we’re also 11-2 instead of 8-8 in Q2 and Q3 the committee might still view that as a better resume.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Mississippi State was 21-12
Would we have won 21 games with their schedule?
How many games would Mississippi St win with our schedule?

Our schedules were pretty close to each other and they won 2 more games than us

 

[willisneverrana43]

Same 17 3 pointers.....
I think on average we make 6 of them (5 is our 29%)....not 10. Some games we make 4 or 5 and others we make 7 or 8.

Same 21 3 pointers for Wisconsin.....given their looks
On average they make 7....not 5. Some games they make 10.

We played great. What if we went 6-17 and they went 10-21. Now 10-21 would have been really difficult based on the quality of looks they (didnt) get, but it wouldn't be impossible,


We shot 8-9 from FT....what if that is 6 (under our average)
They shot 13-22...what if they shot 16-22 (under their average)
5 point swing right there too

Please excuse me if I don't get any of this. Let's try these undeniable stats for RU: 332nd in free throw shooting; 340th in three-point shooting; 350th in field goal percentage.

We need great defense and rebounding to win these upcoming games, and I hope there is a long-term uptick in these dreadful shooting stats to assist in those efforts. RU can win some of those games without improved shooting, but they can't win them if the D and rebounding stink.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Please excuse me if I don't get any of this. Let's try these undeniable stats for RU: 332nd in free throw shooting; 340th in three-point shooting; 350th in field goal percentage.

We need great defense and rebounding to win these upcoming games, and I hope there is a long-term uptick in these dreadful shooting stats to assist in those efforts. RU can win some of those games without improved shooting, but they can't win them if the D and rebounding stink.

We need more than great defense and rebounding to win any game. We still need to not get destroyed in shooting. Shooting is ALWAYS a variable...to say something is wrong if we don't go 6-2 is silly because we are playing every game against competent teams and every game should be between the margin of error known as shooting.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Imagine if we shot 10-17 vs PSU....27 point swing.

We allowed 61 points in 68 possessions to PSU and we outrebounded them.

The narrative was our guys were not focussed. Pike did a terrible job....blah blag blah.

Our defensive result was ELITE in that game.

 

[RUJMM78]

Rutgers consistently puts themselves in place for NCAA bubble consideration which is a positive in one sense but also a quandry because there is a small chance for selection.The real answer is more consistent winning from beginning to end which requires talent like fans will see next season.

 

[JavaDunk18]

The Mag injury absolutely factored into last year's snub, and was stated by a committee member..
(& Of course he wasn't going to be eligible for the NCAAs with torn ACL)
The reverse logic should factor into this year, but who knows if the committee will think that way.
Will only winning the BTT factor in, or will getting to semis? - to do so would include a Q1 win perhaps.
best to be on the right side of the bubble before. 6-2 with sweep at home, 2-2 on road should do it
5-3 with win at Purdue would probably as well..
winning Thursday & at Minnesota will get the Conversation ready..
Imagine Senior Day vs Ohio St with chance to seal NCAA bid..!

 

[bac2therac]

I know last 10 isnt a criteria....my question was were we forewarned the criteria changed or did they dump it on us after picks were made.

The gist of my question is do we ever know if the committee ever pivots and we get surprises.

Any change is announced beforehand so no

 

[bac2therac]

In reflection, I can see how the committee selected some of those teams over us. We thought our elite wins held a lot of relative value, but I think what we learned is that, at least last year, the committee actually placed more value than we thought in metrics that could be like for like in comparing different types of schedules. The MWC types didn’t have many Q1 chances - but they hand plenty of Q2 and Q3 games and did better than we did in those.

Going 2-4 in Q3 and only 500 in Q2-Q3 overall is what held us back. This year we’re a lot better in those metrics. Sure - we may end up 3-10 in Q1 instead of the 4-7 last year but if we’re also 11-2 instead of 8-8 in Q2 and Q3 the committee might still view that as a better resume.

We also brought zero to the table non conference and sos there was 300..igly loss to shu

 

[essexknight]

last 10 not a criteria at all period

now if you are going 2-8 your metrics across the board are dropping, you are accruing bad losses as well....so I have seen schools like Xavier a couple years back and Clemson last year free fall their way out of the tournament

if you are going 8-2 obviously your metrics improve down the stretch. You notch quality wins, etc. So your finish is reflected in your overall profile IMO. Its body of work. At least this year RU has one semi good OOC win at Seton Hall which they havent had and remember SHU did beat UConn. Also RU non conference sos in the 160 range is big improvement over the 300 stuff. RU's profile is relatively clean. Just that loss to Penn State.....but unfortunately that loss to Penn State might be the one that keeps us out.

Does head to head performance matter to the committee? For example, if RU beats NW, Minn, and sweeps Neb for the season series (I understand this is difficult), will this give the program an extra advantage? Or will it not matter and the committee just go by record, SOS, and the NET ranking.

 

[Plum Street]

Have some of you people been under a rock ??
The committee puts who they want in and who they want out . Then they cherry pick stats to justify the choices. They will use one criterion for one school and not for another. They are not consistent in the criteria they use. They just try to justify after the facts.

They have also not bothered to watch conference tournaments the last few years. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they out of nowhere use it as a reason to justify a selection when they need to.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Any change is announced beforehand so no

have you seen a noticaeable difference in the treatment of the conference tournament games over the years?

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Have some of you people been under a rock ??
The committee puts who they want in and who they want out . Then they cherry pick stats to justify the choices. They will use one criterion for one school and not for another. They are not consistent in the criteria they use. They just try to justify after the facts.

They have also not bothered to watch conference tournaments the last few years. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they out of nowhere use it as a reason to justify a selection when they need to.

I am under a rock...the committee is a bunch of individuals all with presumably different interests.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I am under a rock...the committee is a bunch of individuals all with presumably different interests.

Correct - they put who they as a group determine best belong. Which strengths and weaknesses matter most will vary from year to year based on the opinions of those individuals on the committee.

 

[RUGiddy777]

Long, long way to go and seriously difficult things to accomplish before any of this matters. I'm hoping to just enjoy the potential run.

Focus on Thursday. That’s all that matters.

 

[Scangg]

Everyone assuming we lose at Purdue but that would give us a signature elite Q1 win

We have played them tough for years now. We went toe to toe with Purdue without JWill and Ogbole

JWill is so huge and will help defensively guarding Jones. He was the type of player we didn't have someone who could matchup well with before

Wolf, especially now that he dropped weight, is wayyy too small for Edey. This is the game Ogbole should have the most value all season

I'm certainly not chalking this up as a loss. Rutgers will be extremely motivated to get that win

 

[needmorecowbell]

This team, with J Williams, is very fun to watch. I’m going to enjoy watching and not even going to think about the NCAA tournament until they get to 11 conference wins, if that happens.

 

[fluoxetine]

To you the resume was stronger.....what metrics? don't say NET

In reflection, I can see how the committee selected some of those teams over us. We thought our elite wins held a lot of relative value, but I think what we learned is that, at least last year, the committee actually placed more value than we thought in metrics that could be like for like in comparing different types of schedules. The MWC types didn’t have many Q1 chances - but they hand plenty of Q2 and Q3 games and did better than we did in those.

Going 2-4 in Q3 and only 500 in Q2-Q3 overall is what held us back. This year we’re a lot better in those metrics. Sure - we may end up 3-10 in Q1 instead of the 4-7 last year but if we’re also 11-2 instead of 8-8 in Q2 and Q3 the committee might still view that as a better resume.

See I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I don’t feel that strongly that we should’ve been in last year. I am 100% fine in a vacuum with the committee leaving us out. But on the other hand, if 95%+ of analysts predict that you’ll put a team in based on the criteria that you published, and then you don’t, it’s hard for me to not think that maybe the 95% are right and the committee are “wrong”.

 

[fluoxetine]

You could just have computers pick the field and that would almost certainly produce better, more fair and consistent results across the board but I do recognize that it would remove a lot of the fun from the process. Unless you made the computer algorithm a complete black box. But something tells me that would not go over well.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

See I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I don’t feel that strongly that we should’ve been in last year. I am 100% fine in a vacuum with the committee leaving us out. But on the other hand, if 95%+ of analysts predict that you’ll put a team in based on the criteria that you published, and then you don’t, it’s hard for me to not think that maybe the 95% are right and the committee are “wrong”.

What if the metrics that analysts thought the committee was relying on in past years weren't really the most important factors in their decisions after all? Maybe what’s most important is driven by the metrics they believe provide the fairest apples to apples comparisons of the teams they are focusing on.

Take 2021-22 for an example. We made the field with a NET of around 80. We attributed it to all our great wins. But maybe it was also about the apples to apples comparison to fellow BIG teams making the field. Conference record doesn’t matter directly, but if the committee thinks Indiana is a tournament team at 9-11, it’s pretty hard to toss aside a team that went 12-8 against the same (or very close to the same 20 teams).

 

[willisneverrana43]

We need more than great defense and rebounding to win any game. We still need to not get destroyed in shooting. Shooting is ALWAYS a variable...to say something is wrong if we don't go 6-2 is silly because we are playing every game against competent teams and every game should be between the margin of error known as shooting.

I'm still completely lost as to what you're trying to say, and this is the most confounding of many confounding statements: "we are playing every game against competent teams and every game should be between the margin of error known as shooting." What?

Everything varies. So? You need to understand the norm to begin to understand where the variances on which you seem to be relying will generally land. For RU, the norm is #350. On given nights, the performances of the #50 shooting team won't necessarily be #50 for that night. But they will generally be way better than those of the #350 team. This is all obvious.

So unless you're saying, hey, we just might get lucky, I have no idea what you're on about. Now, if you're saying that our O will continue to improve with Jeremiah playing, maybe. But we aren't suddenly becoming a top 50 shooting team. We need the D and rebounding that helped in these three wins first and foremost.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I'm still completely lost as to what you're trying to say, and this is the most confounding of many confounding statements: "we are playing every game against competent teams and every game should be between the margin of error known as shooting." What?

Everything varies. So? You need to understand the norm to begin to understand where the variances on which you seem to be relying will generally land. For RU, the norm is #350. On given nights, the performances of the #50 shooting team won't necessarily be #50 for that night. But they will generally be way better than those of the #350 team. This is all obvious.

So unless you're saying, hey, we just might get lucky, I have no idea what you're on about. Now, if you're saying that our O will continue to improve with Jeremiah playing, maybe. But we aren't suddenly becoming a top 50 shooting team. We need the D and rebounding that helped in these three wins first and foremost.

My issue is your statement that something is WRONG if we aren't 6-2.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

What if the metrics that analysts thought the committee was relying on in past years weren't really the most important factors in their decisions after all? Maybe what’s most important is driven by the metrics they believe provide the fairest apples to apples comparisons of the teams they are focusing on.

Take 2021-22 for an example. We made the field with a NET of around 80. We attributed it to all our great wins. But maybe it was also about the apples to apples comparison to fellow BIG teams making the field. Conference record doesn’t matter directly, but if the committee thinks Indiana is a tournament team at 9-11, it’s pretty hard to toss aside a team that went 12-8 against the same (or very close to the same 20 teams).

Always thought the purest way was to quantify everyone's schedule and compare records based on those schedules....essentially WAB.

The big drawback is teams with real weak schedules. Samford is 22-3. A bubble team would have a 21-4 record.
they are vs Q
0-2
2-0
6-1
12-0

 

[Scangg]

I'm still completely lost as to what you're trying to say, and this is the most confounding of many confounding statements: "we are playing every game against competent teams and every game should be between the margin of error known as shooting." What?

Everything varies. So? You need to understand the norm to begin to understand where the variances on which you seem to be relying will generally land. For RU, the norm is #350. On given nights, the performances of the #50 shooting team won't necessarily be #50 for that night. But they will generally be way better than those of the #350 team. This is all obvious.

So unless you're saying, hey, we just might get lucky, I have no idea what you're on about. Now, if you're saying that our O will continue to improve with Jeremiah playing, maybe. But we aren't suddenly becoming a top 50 shooting team. We need the D and rebounding that helped in these three wins first and foremost.

His point is defense and rebounding should be more reliable game after game. Shooting numbers vary more as teams can be hot or cold especially from 3

 

[bac2therac]

Does head to head performance matter to the committee? For example, if RU beats NW, Minn, and sweeps Neb for the season series (I understand this is difficult), will this give the program an extra advantage? Or will it not matter and the committee just go by record, SOS, and the NET ranking.

no

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

His point is defense and rebounding should be more reliable game after game. Shooting numbers vary more as teams can be hot or cold especially from 3

and nothing is WRONG with losing when you play hard and just shoot bricks, just stinks.

The takeaway for me with us being improved is we could have still beat Wisconsin with a below average shooting game. That is huge.

 

[willisneverrana43]

His point is defense and rebounding should be more reliable game after game. Shooting numbers vary more as teams can be hot or cold especially from 3

Well that I agree with. Thanks for the translation.

 

[willisneverrana43]

and nothing is WRONG with losing when you play hard and just shoot bricks, just stinks.

. . .

But terrible shooting teams shoot bricks way, way, way more often than good shooting teams. So something is wrong--their ability to shoot--and they will suffer more losses because of it than they would if they could shoot better. Again, obvious.

 

[Scangg]

and nothing is WRONG with losing when you play hard and just shoot bricks, just stinks.

The takeaway for me with us being improved is we could have still beat Wisconsin with a below average shooting game. That is huge.

That's the JWill effect on BOTH ends

The defense was elite, then we added a great defender. Not only that, he filled a need this team was missing on defense. A taller longer guard who can cover these bigger guards that have taken advantage of our smaller guards

JWill on Storr was huge. We saw him get mismatched on other players and drive right past them. He should be able to shut down Barnhizer. He gives us someone to matchup against Jones now in the Purdue game (although be was terrible against us). Christie for the Minnesota game