I believe its 12...iowa, wisconsin, Purdue, at Washington are Q2 games, USC/Minnesota in Q3
the issue as repeated is that only 3 of those Q1 games are at the RAC. 1 at MSG with 8 on the road.
THE OFFICIAL 2024-2025 NET RANKINGS THREAD
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
the issue as repeated is that only 3 of those Q1 games are at the RAC. 1 at MSG with 8 on the road.
Isn’t the nature of the NET such that more Q1 games will typically be on the road?
Well that's why you want to have some q1 wins going into conference play
At this point we need 11 more wins, so my guess is if we accomplish that, we’ll have 5 or 6 Q1 wins.
NET holds at 84
Indiana up 5 to 62
Illinois big move from 11 to 5.
Oregon big loser from from 11 all the way down to 23
Indiana up 5 to 62
Illinois big move from 11 to 5.
Oregon big loser from from 11 all the way down to 23
Oregon was destroyed, no shame in losing to Illinois but to lose by 33 on your home floor is really bad. Maryland lost at Washington, a bad loss. Maryland only dropped 5 spots to 17 while Washington jumped up 11 to 95. Washington and USC may soon be breathing down our necks in the NET.
RU is now #84
Q1: 0-4 / Q2: 1-0 / Q3: 2-2 / Q4: 5-0
Results:
Q1 (1-30 Home, 1-50 Neutral, 1-75 Away)
10 - (N)Alabama (L)
20 - (N)Texas A&M (L)
21 - @OSU (L)
62 - @Indiana (L)
Q2 (31-75 Home 51-100 Neutral, 76-135 Away)
41 - PSU (W)
Q3 (76-160 Home, 101-200 Neutral, 136-240 Away)
103 - (N)Notre Dame (W)
119 - (N)Princeton (L)
126 - Columbia (W)
193 - @Kennesaw St (L)
Q4 (161+ Home, 201+Neutral, 241+ Away)
185 - Merrimack (W)
189 - SHU (W)
198 - St. Peters (W)
259 - Monmouth (W)
316 - Wagner (W)
Upcoming
Q1 (1-30 Home, 1-50 Neutral, 1-75 Away)
5 - Illinois
11 - @Michigan
11 - Michigan
15 - UCLA
17 - @Maryland
23 - @Oregon
26 - (N)MSU
31 - @Purdue
41 - @PSU
45 - @Northwestern
Q2 (31-75 Home, 51-100 Neutral, 76-135 Away)
33 - Wisconsin
37 - Purdue
44 - Nebraska
49 - Iowa
95 - @Washington
Q3 (76-160 Home, 101-200 Neutral, 136-240 Away)
91 - USC
Q4 (161+ Home, 201+Neutral, 241+ Away)
165 - Minnesota
Notes:
- (N)FUND drops to Q3
- Minnesota drops to Q4
- Merrimack moved ahead of SHU
Q1: 0-4 / Q2: 1-0 / Q3: 2-2 / Q4: 5-0
Results:
Q1 (1-30 Home, 1-50 Neutral, 1-75 Away)
10 - (N)Alabama (L)
20 - (N)Texas A&M (L)
21 - @OSU (L)
62 - @Indiana (L)
Q2 (31-75 Home 51-100 Neutral, 76-135 Away)
41 - PSU (W)
Q3 (76-160 Home, 101-200 Neutral, 136-240 Away)
103 - (N)Notre Dame (W)
119 - (N)Princeton (L)
126 - Columbia (W)
193 - @Kennesaw St (L)
Q4 (161+ Home, 201+Neutral, 241+ Away)
185 - Merrimack (W)
189 - SHU (W)
198 - St. Peters (W)
259 - Monmouth (W)
316 - Wagner (W)
Upcoming
Q1 (1-30 Home, 1-50 Neutral, 1-75 Away)
5 - Illinois
11 - @Michigan
11 - Michigan
15 - UCLA
17 - @Maryland
23 - @Oregon
26 - (N)MSU
31 - @Purdue
41 - @PSU
45 - @Northwestern
Q2 (31-75 Home, 51-100 Neutral, 76-135 Away)
33 - Wisconsin
37 - Purdue
44 - Nebraska
49 - Iowa
95 - @Washington
Q3 (76-160 Home, 101-200 Neutral, 136-240 Away)
91 - USC
Q4 (161+ Home, 201+Neutral, 241+ Away)
165 - Minnesota
Notes:
- (N)FUND drops to Q3
- Minnesota drops to Q4
- Merrimack moved ahead of SHU
Rutgers slips to 87
Wisconsin with their raucous win over Iowa moves to 25 and is now a Quad 1 home game for Rutgers
Wisconsin with their raucous win over Iowa moves to 25 and is now a Quad 1 home game for Rutgers
The opportunities are there. Will Pike make some adjustments and will the supporting cast show up ? Will the team commit to team rebounding and eliminate second chance points ?
Rutgers up to 83
Wisconsin 25, Purdue slides into Q1 at 30, UCLA falls to 19
Nebraska surges to 34
Penn State, RU's best win at 38.
Notre Dame back to Quad 2 at 100.
Princeton 124
Kennesaw State at 186
Seton Hall in Quad 4 at 196
Wisconsin 25, Purdue slides into Q1 at 30, UCLA falls to 19
Nebraska surges to 34
Penn State, RU's best win at 38.
Notre Dame back to Quad 2 at 100.
Princeton 124
Kennesaw State at 186
Seton Hall in Quad 4 at 196
I saw maybe 10 minutes of the ACC network yesterday. First - it still amazes me how poor the ACC has become. There's Duke, some mediocre teams and then some really poor teams. Second, they were trying to put lipstick on a pig that "a number of (ACC) teams" are quad 1s currently - but listed the teams in the top 75 (so technically I guess it is true as an away game). But nobody on the panel mentioned that it's a zero sum situation at this point - one ACC win means an ACC loss on the other side, and often that would be a bad loss.
Yes , the ACC is less than mediocre. On the other hand , the SEC is ridiculously good , maybe the best conference since the 1990’s ACC teams. What was surprising in the SEC yesterday , with the exception of Florida / Kentucky game that was a barn burner , Tennessee blew out Arkansas, Auburn blew out Missouri , Mississippi State blew out South Carolina , Alabama blew out a previous undefeated Oklahoma team, Texas A&M blew out Texas. If the SEC is that good top to bottom , why did all the teams that lost get blown out. ? Maybe the winners are that good and I can agree that Tennessee , Auburn , Alabama , Texas A& M are in the very top of the top 10 teams but maybe the highly ranked losers are not as good as the out of conference record says it is. Something to watch. I would add Florida and Kentucky to that top tier but then again an average Ohio State team blew out Kentucky by 20. So jury still out on Kentucky.
Rutgers drops a spot to 84.
Wisconsin is now 27. Purdue is 26. UCLA 18.
Penn State took a tumble to 48.
Wisconsin is now 27. Purdue is 26. UCLA 18.
Penn State took a tumble to 48.
Even if Rutgers gets red hot (unlikely I know), it seems highly unlikey we could get the NET into the 40s. It's deep enough into the season where big jumps are unlikely.
not really...the biggest jumps plus and minus are coming from midmajors headed down.....Rutgers is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY down right now..they are the 15th rated Big 10 school and USC/Washington are breathing down their neck. Unless they are winning on the road by double digits its going to take ALOT OF WINS to get them into the top 60 where they would even be in contention.
Currently Rutgers has no resume at all. Their Penn State win is starting to fade and their ooc resume is complete garbage. At 8-6, their entire resume relies on going 11-6 the rest of the way
PSU has dropped in the NET so that Q1 is gone for good for the rest of the season and will finish as Q2, don’t see PSU returning to Q1 level (top 30). Notre Dame is hanging by a thread as a Q2, seems likely they will be a Q3 when it’s all said and done. SHU is not moving up to a Q3, they are pretty bad, so that’s a Q4. Kennesaw could drop beyond 240 to become a Q4, who knows (don’t think that will happen though), they are now 188 and had been as low as 133. Princeton is 124 and a Q3 loss, doesn’t seem likely to move up to a Q2. The help that RU needs to get doesn’t seem to be happening at all.
I am starting to think 12-5 is now mandatory only because the non-conference resume will be so poor with what will likely finish as two Q3 losses that won’t become Q2 and the best win will likely finish as a Q3 win (ND). They are 1-2 now in the B1G, I think a 13-7 B1G record is likely the only hope (12-5 the rest of the way) to get in. It seems like a lot of games they could win in conference as a Q1 could also drop to Q2. The deck is very stacked against RU at the moment so thinking they need 20 wins for sure as it doesn’t seem like they will have many Q1s. Or maybe 11-6 with 19 wins but have to get a bunch of road wins that have a better chance of holding as Q1. Road games with Michigan, Maryland, Oregon, Purdue, PSU, Nebraska and Northwestern likely Q1 wins so need to get 3 of these I would say, beat Washington on the road, then rack up a bunch of home wins and that could add up to a 12-5 record rest of the way. Not going to be easy, but it would be a tourney resume I think, really doesn’t seem possible right now based upon the team we have seen on the court so far though. If they lose today to Wisky, a bad sign, as it’s the most winnable of the 3 upcoming home games. Not an easy win, just that it’s more winnable than Purdue and UCLA. Also, Wisky is a Q1 now at 27, but could easily end up being Q2. The Big 10 metrics and net rankings could easily move against us regarding home wins so that’s why those road wins are essential.
Last edited:
Big jumps can still happen, but you need a lot of room above (or below) you to jump. Out of 364 teams, if you were 290th and beat the #2 team by 25 points, you'd see a big jump upward and the #2 team would see a big drop downward. If you're already 30th and beat the #2 team, neither of you will see nearly as much movement.
Think about it in terms of grades. If you have a 25 average through half the marking period and get 100 on a test, your average will increase by more points than if you have an 80 average and get 100 on a test... just because it's easier to get to the midpoint than it is to get toward an extreme.
We're currently at 84, which is ahead of 76% of teams (C student). Having a run of great games can get our GPA up to a B- (72, ahead of 80% of teams)... but getting to a B+ (47, ahead of 87% of teams) would need a consistent run of "A" scores to accomplish without slipping up and getting any "C"s.
That's mathematically possible - but it would be rare/difficult for a C student to suddenly start turning in consistent A work more than a third of the way through the marking period.
another thing to factor in is the rest of the league and the fact that even in other power 5 conferences most have them all or most their teams ranked in top 100...just getting Q1/2 wins is what alot of other top 100 schools are doing...many of them have non conference resumes, rutgers does not. Just looking at big 10 so far, I mean even Washington has a win over Maryland which makes their resume better than Rutgers right now.
I'm going to use Kenpom because the actual numbers are available, but NET should be a similar calculation.
We have played 14/31 (45.16%) of the regular season and our Kenpom is +10.34 which is #75. The #40 team in Kenpom is currently Louisville and is +16.89.
If we assume the top 40 threshold remains at +16.89, then we would need to play at +22.28 for the rest of the season to reach that number. A current kenpom rating of +22.28 would rank #20.
So in order to reach the top 40 in NET we would approximately need to play like a top 20 team for the remainder of the regular season.
We have played 14/31 (45.16%) of the regular season and our Kenpom is +10.34 which is #75. The #40 team in Kenpom is currently Louisville and is +16.89.
If we assume the top 40 threshold remains at +16.89, then we would need to play at +22.28 for the rest of the season to reach that number. A current kenpom rating of +22.28 would rank #20.
So in order to reach the top 40 in NET we would approximately need to play like a top 20 team for the remainder of the regular season.
Just getting into top 60 would only require playing at +14.88 the rest of the way which is currently #55. That seems very doable but we would not pick up enough wins playing like that unless we do very very well in a lot of close games.
The lack of existing resume for RU is what makes me think they need to do MORE in conference and get to 20 wins. I guess 19 wins could get them in but their resume would really only consist of their conference record and wins. I am thinking they need to do extra in conference due to the fact they did so little in non-conference, only thing they did were negatives by picking up two Q3 losses. Plus, as you said, everyone is going to have top 100 wins against their conference so I think RU will need to do more to stand out, 20 wins minimum. Do I think it’s going to happen? No, personally I see more of a 16-15 or 15-16 finish than I do 20-11.
I really do not think you need to get to 20 wins, I think 19 is pretty pretty safe and that's even if one of those comes in the BTT. Of course it all depends on the how the bubble shakes out and it's too early to project any of that but when it all shakes out we are going to have a top 25 SOS. 13 of the remaining 17 games are Q1. Going 11-6 or even 10-7 against that is going to be a tall order for this team but if they do it the resume will build itself.
If we picked up the most obvious 10 games we would be at
18-13
--
Q1: 6-10
Q2: 4-0
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0
Now that is living on the edge going into the BTT for sure but if you add one more win there you are at 7 Q1 wins minimum. The 2022 resume that everyone creamed themselves over regarding Q1 totals was only 6-6 against Q1.
Now granted 5 of those were in the top half of Q1 but they also had a brutal Q4 loss far worse than anything we've done this year. I do not envision a scenario where a 19-12 Rutgers team with 7 Q1 wins is not a tournament team going into the BTT.
If we picked up the most obvious 10 games we would be at
18-13
--
Q1: 6-10
Q2: 4-0
Q3: 2-2
Q4: 6-0
Now that is living on the edge going into the BTT for sure but if you add one more win there you are at 7 Q1 wins minimum. The 2022 resume that everyone creamed themselves over regarding Q1 totals was only 6-6 against Q1.
Now granted 5 of those were in the top half of Q1 but they also had a brutal Q4 loss far worse than anything we've done this year. I do not envision a scenario where a 19-12 Rutgers team with 7 Q1 wins is not a tournament team going into the BTT.
The committee doesn’t really factor in additional wins in the Big 10 tourney. This has been a trend of recent years. They have the field picked prior to the conference tourneys being completed. RU has to do its work for the resume within the remaining regular season. You could be right about 19 wins getting them in, I just think since the resume was so lacking, so nothing, so meh going into conference play that they will need to do extra to make up for it.
It’s not luck ! Teams learn how to play in tight games and the importance of execution and routine. Coaching really matters
I know this is the conventional wisdom but it's not part of the stated criteria and it also means that losses in the conference tournament matter less. If the conference tournament didn't count at all I would probably argue that 18-13 is likely to be enough.. but 18-14 even if the 14th is given less weight makes me nervous.
The committee changes over time and you never know exactly what they are going to prioritize.
Winning very high percentages in one possession games is not sustainable. 100% luck? No. But if you let it go down to the wire you have exposed yourself to a ton of variance and no amount of coaching can save you from that.
Agreed winning big takes out the late variance that can occur.
Disagree 10000000000% coaching doesn’t win or lose those games.
Good Coaching is more obvious in the decisions made in close games by them and their players.
We have seen it here this year in basketball as well as football. Our coaches incompetence in those loses were not luck based. They were awful coaching decisions.
It’s not luck that the chiefs are 14-1 in one score games this year. (Example)
Ehh.....
There is probably some luck in that. But even in the absence of any extra "close game" skill you would expect a good team to win by a couple points more often than it would lose by a couple points.
Also regarding Pike he is 46-45 in close games so he can't be doing anything that terrible in them, at least not systematically.
Just curious what you’re defining as a close win? Also how many of those 46 were Q3, Q4 close wins that should have been easier.
Yes the good teams win close games because they have been coached for every scenario. They are prepared for anything and have a plan for those moments. They also become comfortable in those situations.
To be clear I wish we won every game by 20 points but coaching really matters in those situations:
Greg against Illinois. That wasn’t a luck thing that was a coach who panicked and is bad at his job.
Pike systematically puts himself and teams in those positions. Pike is in those games a lot because he wants to play a rock fight type game. He wants to take the air out of the ball and limit possessions. No offense all defense which keeps good teams and bad teams close. (See Virginia ).
My issue is the amount of close games we are in every year with very BAD teams also nothing to do with luck. Thats not a luck factor at the end of games because the Coaching should have been better not to have put us in that place in the last min of a game.
If that were true then such a thing would be sustainable over time but most of the time data shows it is not. I would be shocked if you could find a basketball coach winning 1-2 point games at more than like a 55% clip over a long career.
Regardless of what you think about that timeout, what happened there was mostly a combination of:
(1) yes, luck. We still win a huge percentage of the time there and
(2) having a complete trash secondary which is nothing specific to a close game
I think you are conflating things here. There is a huge luck factor at the END of such games. If you put yourself into a situation where you need good luck to beat a bad team, that's bad. But it's not bad because you are "bad at winning close games" it's bad because you are in the close game in the first place.
Escaping Seton Hall is not a much better sign for the future than losing by 1 would've been.
the resume does not build itself.....how you can annex 6 Q1 wins at this point and 2 more Q2s when we have a combined total of 2 is beyond me and one of those ND will likely fall by the wayside.
you are treating this is a vacuum..right now RU is probably 16th in NCAA pecking order...there will be schools with similar 18-13 and quad numbers with better wins
