I hope none of the scheduletards who say we need to upgrade our schedule are saying no to this idea.
Princeton
- Thread starter RU72
- Start date
How is this upgrading our schedule? Adding Princeton is like adding Temple, or UMass-Lowell (and a touch behind Wake Forest and Seton Hall) - at the end of the year, another Q3 game will not in any way be considered an upgrade.
RU has played:
120 - Princeton (first game 1917)
117 - Lafayette (first game 1917)
105 - Lehigh (first game 1907)
81 - Penn St (first game 1922)
73 - Seton Hall (first game 1916)
In the last 40 years:
50 - Seton Hall
35 - Penn St
31 - Princeton
11 - Lafayette
5 - Lehigh
Are we going to go back and renew "rivalries" with Lafayette and Lehigh, too? Is football going to renew its age-old rivalry with Princeton?
We should play Princeton when it makes sense for us to do so - and in the landscape of college basketball right now, it makes no sense to play them.
120 - Princeton (first game 1917)
117 - Lafayette (first game 1917)
105 - Lehigh (first game 1907)
81 - Penn St (first game 1922)
73 - Seton Hall (first game 1916)
In the last 40 years:
50 - Seton Hall
35 - Penn St
31 - Princeton
11 - Lafayette
5 - Lehigh
Are we going to go back and renew "rivalries" with Lafayette and Lehigh, too? Is football going to renew its age-old rivalry with Princeton?
We should play Princeton when it makes sense for us to do so - and in the landscape of college basketball right now, it makes no sense to play them.
Replacing a Q4 guaranteed-win with a Q3 should-win isn't "upgrading the schedule".
Playing Central Connecticut and the endless parade of sub 300s NET teams that get marched into the RAC every November and December also does nothing for RU but you and I both know those aren't stopping, Brian.
That's one way to frame it.
I'd argue replacing Colombia (341 Net) with Princeton (111 Net) is upgrading our non-con schedule, which the Committee says is very important to them, right or wrong.
There is more to this than what is probably over 33 games a statistically insignificant metric. There is playing an iconic program. There is playing a program in which 153 D-1 schools emulate wrinkles of their offense. Princeton basketball is a serious national brand. There is prude. There is no team which I have derived more satisfaction from defeating in all sports. The 75-62 win at Jadwin in 1976 sits with the Louisville football win and the Purdue basketball wins. I am neither right nor wrong. I have an opinion which is probably shared by 50% of alumni. But the key issue is who are you replacing? Don't play it as an add on. Replace a Coppin State,Bucknell or Columbia. Rutgers will be above sweating on Selection Sunday. And I am good with either or both a 2-1, or always playing at the RAC. Princeton would not play Rutgers in football in New Brunswick for 68 straight years. So ok just play at the RAC. Rice,Bannon and Tom all recognized the value of the game. Gary was into it. Bill Foster was a huge zealot of it. Argue as much as you want,but if would never be the NCAA decider. But, unfortunately it is never happening under Steve and he is the boss. Not me.
John Battle had a 10 yr career in the NBA. Let's wait and see if Dingle is truly a 'better' version of one of the 10 best ever to play at RU
We beat Wake Forest at 90 and UMass-Lowell at 119 this year, and the committee said they weren't able to find a good OOC win to justify giving us a bid..... Princeton was 111 this year. A win over Princeton is no different than those. And we got knocked hard for losing to 78 Seton Hall and 92 Nebraska.
Why on earth would we want to add a dangerous 100+ team to the schedule when 19 of 20 B1G schools are ranked better than them?
If we're going to "upgrade" the schedule, we need to drop schools in that 80-120 range and replace them with a couple of schools in the Top 50. They don't even have to be elite schools... grab some "top half" MWC schools like Utah State (19), Boise St (29), or Nevada (37).
The committee is not what it was in the 90s, and it values different things. If it comes around to valuing wins against good programs from low majors and not considering losses to them as black eyes, I've got no problem with it. That's a pipe dream, though.
You say that replacing Bucknell with Princeton would put us "above sweating".... unless we lost, in which case we wouldn't have been sweating because we wouldn't even have been on the bubble with a 5th Q3 loss.
There's a nostalgia in playing Princeton, I get it. But that game is of no value to us other than giving a warm feeling to an older segment of the alumni.
Playing Princeton is deciding to drink a milk shake as an adult.
You still want the milk shake...tastes great. Is it a good idea...?
And yes, idiots like me still occasionally drink and regret "their last one ever" every so often.
You still want the milk shake...tastes great. Is it a good idea...?
And yes, idiots like me still occasionally drink and regret "their last one ever" every so often.
It’s a joke dude . RU72 is a connected insider and I love his posts . But he’s a wine and cheese New England guy . It’s not a bad thing ! He’s a super successful guy , but we don’t need to play Princeton
These games hate em or not allow the team to get young players exposed and figure things out a little early in the season. Hobbs alluded to it. May hate it as a fan and may not agree with the reason but there is a reason.
Yeah I'm with you. I just want us to upgrade one way or another. This time next year I don't wanna read Bac's thread where he has us on the bubble in part because of our non-con SOS "wart".
Plus as a STH who drives an hour each way for every game, the Bucknell/Columbia/Sacred Heart/Coppin et al games over the span of just a few weeks get tedious
I’m not 100% opposed to playing Princeton.
I’m 100% opposed to playing Princeton because of a “rivalry” that just doesn’t exist any longer.
I’m 100% opposed to playing Princeton because of a “rivalry” that just doesn’t exist any longer.
Still really sad to me that the committee is saying multiple good in conference wins are practically meaningless.
I understand everyone schedules punching bags with NET rankings in the 300s. But no other Big Ten does it as much as us AND also refuses to play in a decent neutral site tournament in November and December. I think the committee are clowns that wronged Rutgers too but they determine our fate and it seem to be important to them.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t mind seeing us play some heavyweights early. Not too many but a couple for sure.
Yep . We need to play in a tournament or some marquee event . That game on the the ship is cool .
Maybe get a boat and put a court on it, and play Gonzaga on the raritan near Johnson park
Rutgers isn't a powerhouse program with elite talent .Pikiell knows it will be very difficult to win even 10 B1G TEN games.The goal is a NCAA bid which in most cases means winning at least 20 games.Rutgers needs to win at least 8 out of conference games and even more to not being consided a NCAA bubble team.There is no question playing Princeton is high risk and low reward because they are fundamentally sound forcing more talented teams like Arizona to perform below expectations.Its the fear of losing to Princeton versus other cupcake type teams that will determine scheduling.Nobody expected Rutgers to lose to Lafayette at home and how it almost caused not getting a NCAA bid.
I mean is there a way to manipulate the OOC SOS in a way to bring up the ranking without keeping out wins about the same?
8-3
+
12-8 (tough to do)
Gets you 20 wins.
We need 8 wins minimum from OOC.
If played 6 cupcakes to tune the team up and play 5 legit teams. Thats 40/60 split which should put us about middle of the pack for OOC SOS slightly worse than average.
Beat the 6 cup cakes and go 2-3 / 3-2 against the good teams and there you go.
2-3 signature OOC wins + decent metrics.
Doesn’t that solve the problem.
Now the question is how do we find 5 quad 1 / 2 - Name Brand teams to play us.
8-3
+
12-8 (tough to do)
Gets you 20 wins.
We need 8 wins minimum from OOC.
If played 6 cupcakes to tune the team up and play 5 legit teams. Thats 40/60 split which should put us about middle of the pack for OOC SOS slightly worse than average.
Beat the 6 cup cakes and go 2-3 / 3-2 against the good teams and there you go.
2-3 signature OOC wins + decent metrics.
Doesn’t that solve the problem.
Now the question is how do we find 5 quad 1 / 2 - Name Brand teams to play us.
No tournament is happening. I agree that would be optimal. Let's all at least hope for Princeton and FDU wins as it is good for NJ!And Tosan will somehow end up in the NBA.A Pistons scout just told me that.
If that's all Pike cared about a third of the players wouldn't be on the bench and would have been told to leave and be replaced.
Small minded. We are the Big Ten the reasonable goal is a national championship. Until an ACL injury we were looking pretty good for 2nd place in the Big Ten, or more. Princeton is like playing Army in football, weird team that does things a certain way that doesn’t really help you but you can argue to play the game for reasons other than competition. Princeton with their 3s all over no reason to play them. We can play better ranked teams with less chance to beat us like Wake. That’s the smart thing to do
This really is a non starter on more levels. The OOC needed Wake Forest and Seton Hall to be better than they were this year. This year and getting robbed at Ohio State and the subsequent game/let down vs Seton Hall, separates RU from NIT to being a 7 or 8 Seed where NW, Iowa, Illinois landed this year.
We rolled the dice that Paul Mulcahy would go from 9PPG to 10.5 to 11PPG and that Caleb as a 5th year guy mixed with Spencer, Cliff, Hyatt and Mag, was enough of a core group to win 20 games. Perhaps more Simpson early solves the schedule issues/discussion.
I'm happy Princeton won and I am not sure why Princeton is the poster child for updating the OOC.....if they were so valuable, Seton Hall, Villanova, St John's, Maryland, Virginia and UConn would all be on board to play Princeton, Penn or Harvard on an annual basis.
I don't believe for one second that Princeton helps the OOC slate. This is all about an amount of alumni that can't see the current landscape of where sports is today. No one is lining up to play regional teams, in their geographic footprint that could possibly defeat them.
Why doesn't Gonzaga play Washington.....or shouldn't they schedule a home and home with Oregon, or Washington State....?? Those schools are all in the same area.
Why doesn't UCLA or USC, schedule Fresno State, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine....?? Those teams frequently make the NCAAs.....Those schools could easily schedule San Francisco, Santa Clara or St Marys....they don't do so.
It takes time to establish a winning resume and RU has now put together 4 straight NCAA resumes in a row. Prior to that, it has 13 straight losing seasons....not even NIT caliber, they were under. 500 overall.
The schedule will get updated and RU has to improve its roster, depth and continue to improve recruiting. Ultimately the depth, recruiting and talent fixes 90% of RUs dilemma, the schedule we play isn't really relevant, if the talent is improved, then the wins will happen.
We rolled the dice that Paul Mulcahy would go from 9PPG to 10.5 to 11PPG and that Caleb as a 5th year guy mixed with Spencer, Cliff, Hyatt and Mag, was enough of a core group to win 20 games. Perhaps more Simpson early solves the schedule issues/discussion.
I'm happy Princeton won and I am not sure why Princeton is the poster child for updating the OOC.....if they were so valuable, Seton Hall, Villanova, St John's, Maryland, Virginia and UConn would all be on board to play Princeton, Penn or Harvard on an annual basis.
I don't believe for one second that Princeton helps the OOC slate. This is all about an amount of alumni that can't see the current landscape of where sports is today. No one is lining up to play regional teams, in their geographic footprint that could possibly defeat them.
Why doesn't Gonzaga play Washington.....or shouldn't they schedule a home and home with Oregon, or Washington State....?? Those schools are all in the same area.
Why doesn't UCLA or USC, schedule Fresno State, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine....?? Those teams frequently make the NCAAs.....Those schools could easily schedule San Francisco, Santa Clara or St Marys....they don't do so.
It takes time to establish a winning resume and RU has now put together 4 straight NCAA resumes in a row. Prior to that, it has 13 straight losing seasons....not even NIT caliber, they were under. 500 overall.
The schedule will get updated and RU has to improve its roster, depth and continue to improve recruiting. Ultimately the depth, recruiting and talent fixes 90% of RUs dilemma, the schedule we play isn't really relevant, if the talent is improved, then the wins will happen.
Everyone wants to upgrade the schedule as long as it doesn’t mean we have a better chance of getting losses.
It’s like trying to find a zero calorie donut that tastes good and doesn’t give you cancer
It’s like trying to find a zero calorie donut that tastes good and doesn’t give you cancer
In the late 80s to mid 90s when I was in school the rivalrly was still a big deal but quickly fell after Carrill retired. Less and less Princeton fans attended the game at the RAC for the so called rivalry...what rivalry. Rutgers was now in the Big East and aligned more with Seton Hall than the Lehighs and Princeton of an era that was now over. Now in the Big 10 even further removed and landscaped has changed where everything is about metrics and quads and doing the things you have to do with scheduling
That Carino tweet thread was nauseating to read.
That Carino tweet thread was nauseating to read.
Out of Conference NET rankings for B1G teams. Bolded games are those with NET of 76-160.
In tournament:
Purdue: 6, 12, 16, 25, 86, 145, 210, 221, 325, 340, 359
Indiana: 9, 10, 22, 46, 115, 228, 286, 305, 322, 335, 348
Maryland: 3, 4, 25, 35, 99, 229, 240, 246, 300, 306, 315, 328
MSU: 2, 6, 26, 47, 75, 164, 186, 183, 193, 231, 272
Illinois: 3, 7, 21, 27, 42, 126, 309, 319, 338, 344, 348, 351
Iowa: 16, 20, 28, 32, 60, 77, 179, 242, 317, 318, 344, 348
NW: 29, 32, 44, 67, 163, 183, 237, 243, 252, 278, 285, 299
PSU: 19, 60, 76, 88, 110, 131, 174, 254, 262, 271, 321, 355
Not in tournament:
Rutgers: 35, 77, 86, 90, 119, 125, 217, 295, 326, 328, 341, 343
OSU: 14, 16, 46, 63, 70, 247, 275, 304, 319, 336, 344
Michigan: 26, 27, 46, 66, 67, 82, 133, 148, 237, 305, 320, 329
Wisconsin: 9, 12, 50, 72, 78, 90, 97, 274, 298, 323, 361
Nebraska: 17, 23, 24, 68, 98, 168, 204, 221, 275, 317, 332
Minnesota: 49, 76, 91, 163, 169, 244, 299, 323, 329, 332, 336
Rutgers is the only team in the B1G that had 5 OOC teams with NET rankings of 76-160 on their schedule. PSU had 4, but 3 of them were in a neutral tournament. Rutgers, PSU, and Minnesota are the only three teams to have just 1 team in the NET Top 50 on their schedule.
Throwing Princeton in there at 111 doesn't help us. We need to drop 3 of those bolded games and replace with 2 Top 50 teams and 1 more Q4.
In tournament:
Purdue: 6, 12, 16, 25, 86, 145, 210, 221, 325, 340, 359
Indiana: 9, 10, 22, 46, 115, 228, 286, 305, 322, 335, 348
Maryland: 3, 4, 25, 35, 99, 229, 240, 246, 300, 306, 315, 328
MSU: 2, 6, 26, 47, 75, 164, 186, 183, 193, 231, 272
Illinois: 3, 7, 21, 27, 42, 126, 309, 319, 338, 344, 348, 351
Iowa: 16, 20, 28, 32, 60, 77, 179, 242, 317, 318, 344, 348
NW: 29, 32, 44, 67, 163, 183, 237, 243, 252, 278, 285, 299
PSU: 19, 60, 76, 88, 110, 131, 174, 254, 262, 271, 321, 355
Not in tournament:
Rutgers: 35, 77, 86, 90, 119, 125, 217, 295, 326, 328, 341, 343
OSU: 14, 16, 46, 63, 70, 247, 275, 304, 319, 336, 344
Michigan: 26, 27, 46, 66, 67, 82, 133, 148, 237, 305, 320, 329
Wisconsin: 9, 12, 50, 72, 78, 90, 97, 274, 298, 323, 361
Nebraska: 17, 23, 24, 68, 98, 168, 204, 221, 275, 317, 332
Minnesota: 49, 76, 91, 163, 169, 244, 299, 323, 329, 332, 336
Rutgers is the only team in the B1G that had 5 OOC teams with NET rankings of 76-160 on their schedule. PSU had 4, but 3 of them were in a neutral tournament. Rutgers, PSU, and Minnesota are the only three teams to have just 1 team in the NET Top 50 on their schedule.
Throwing Princeton in there at 111 doesn't help us. We need to drop 3 of those bolded games and replace with 2 Top 50 teams and 1 more Q4.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
People being afraid to play princeton just shows the loser mindset of this fan base and confirmed what ive long thought, youre all fine with sneaking into the tourney and being mediocre as long as we have a nice coach. If you worry about MAYBE losing to Princeton and causing you to miss the tourney then you have low expectation of this program to begin with
You’re totally right, a Q3 game against Princeton is what’s been missing from our tournament resume, thanks for your wisdom. Good teams never lose to inferior teams in one-off games
I think you’re mis-understanding as this isn’t what I’m reading.
Most people either
1) Don’t think Princeton is a rival any longer (so no need to fell obligated to play them)
2) Don’t think scheduling Princeton will do much to increase our SOS, and there are many other teams out there that we can schedule if we want to improve our SOS.
3) Believe both 1) and 2) to be true
I don’t think any of that has to do with being “scared” of playing Princeton. Whether we lose to Princeton or comparable team - it’s all the same. Of course you would have a guy like Carino or Politi ripping RU to shreds if we lost to them but who cares about those geeks.
Similar threads
