so i know this does rutgers but how does it do all the other schools...do you really think down to the last spot that Rutgers is chosen over North Carolina. And does this take into account bid stealers potentially from the ACC or Big East
THE OFFICIAL 2024-2025 NET RANKINGS THREAD
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Getting to 18-13 is highly unlikely. Getting a bid with 14 losses also unlikely to begin with based on our resume.
Regarding the injury thing, I think for it to conceivable matter, not only would Dylan have to play amazing down the stretch, I’d think he’d have to also do so in the conference tournament. The conference tournaments do not seem to matter per se from a resume perspective but the only scenerio I see where we’d truly feel close to 50 / 50 about our At Large chances with 14 losses would be a situation where we not only finished 18-13 before the BIG tournament but also rattled off several wins before losing in the semis or finals with Dylan being the talk of the tournament with the numbers he’s putting up.
I would say the odds of running the table in the B1G tournament are better than this scenario but I'll play. If you also assume that these results get them to the top 9 and you add a tournament win with a loss the next round (I assumed a win against OSU and a loss to MSU), that gets Rutgers to the top half of last four in.
Honestly if that scenario happens, very unlikely, and the UNC games go as expected then it comes down to good wins vs bad losses right? UNC would have 20 wins vs 18 but only 1 Quad 1 win and Rutgers would have 6. Add that to the Rutgers star power and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they pick Rutgers over UNC.
UNC could end up winning 1 more than expected and then it is RU vs another school.
Of course I thought of the bid stealers as you know from the past 10 years I have a strange fixation on them.
You know exactly what i am doing right now...combination of bargaining, denial and most of all threading the needle.
I don't expect our D to magically get better and despite what some want to believe it isn't at all. We are just have to hope we get superhuman shooting games from Ace, bad games from opponents, and Dylan returning to his early season form. Maybe the stars allign and we go 7-3 and the great teams of college basketball keep beating the snot out of everybody. Bid stealers get defeated. There is left a ceasepool of teams 40-55 fighting it out.
Lot to ask for, but better than not caring and having ZERO reason to go and watch games. Last night's game at least won't have me dreading going to the RAC on Saturday.
I'll listen and respect yuor arguement AND teams have done it before......but asking us to win 5 games in 5 nights is a BIG BIG BIG ask.
I like my chances of being 4 games over .500 in a month and a half then 5 games over .500 in 5 days.
Lightning in a bottle is a thing. @fluoxetine may not though
And when interviewed after the selection, the head of the selection committee was specifically asked about RU being left out - since RU's OVERALL profile was more than good enough), he specifically mentioned RU's losing Mag, and the record of the team AFTER Mag was hurt.
Meh, it's like a random stat. Like the thing Palm was doing in 2020 with "wins away from home" or whatever. It's unusual for a team to put together a profile with that stat but since a huge percentage of those games would be Q1 that it would be unlike most profiles that contain "a losing record in quads 1-3".
I clicked it. You have now agreed to guarantee my computer for life.
Except you are continuing to shit on the team. We are all well aware of the inconsistency of the supporting cast that has made this year torturous but stop downplaying the wins. We beat Nebraska after 1 bad loss at Purdue. We were their second game in this losing streak they are on and they had won 20 straight at their place. Nebraska played well against us and we still won. They didn’t play like shit.
Northwestern was 48 in the NET and were 10-1 at home. We beat them at home when they were at full strength. We beat them without Dylan. It was a really good win as our NET went up from 82-72 , which is a big jump for this time of year . Stop downplaying the win.
I'll put this in the "Don't ask, don't tell" folder.. we know have a bye.
I am going to officially block my calendar for late March that i blocked and unblocked. Used pencil, but still extremely messy.
Well the problem is the win is counter intuitive to your point. We just beat NW without Dylan. And we lost to Kennesaw and Princeton with him. Wouldn’t the optics to an outsider really be that figured things out down the stretch with a young team in that situation?
The problem is that it's such a difficult stretch, with their two worst opponents being on the road, and to only lose three of them would be incredible. If they can't get into the top 9 then you're right that might be too much to overcome.
* Edit - Sorry just realized Minnesota is home. Still a brutal stretch.
But I think there's a scenario where they can get to 16 or 17 regular season wins and get that first bye. Would anyone be that surprised if we see the best version of Ace and Dylan for this tournament with what might be their last chance to showcase their talents on national television?
Are you talking real world or how we are viewed from the committee standpoint.
I looked at it binary at large or 5-0...this blended view, would probably be the most likely scenario if we can't go 3-1 in our next 4.
let's talk if we lose Saturday
Ok let’s just keep it simple. 0-2 quad 3. That’s a disqualifier for a bubble team.
Look - I know the conf tournaments have not mattered historically terms of building resumes, but with 14 losses, I’d think we’d also need a pretty good showing in the tournament. Probably 2 wins?
The actual percentage may say 10-3 is easier than 5-0 but getting hot is a thing - there is a mental component to winning (and losing) that cannot be quantified.
I’m thinking 18 regular season wins puts us on the bubble, and 2 wins in the B1G tourney with a healthy Dylan gets us into the big dance.
I’m saying - put yourself in the seat of a member of that committee. Suppose we accomplish the near impossible and go 8-2 down the stretch. Say we win the first BIg tournament game then get bounced. We’re 19-14. Someone throws the thought out - oh but Dylan Harper was out or not at 100% for 5 of those losses.
The problem we have is that right before Dylan got sick, Rutgers was already sitting at 8-5 with no good wins and two ugly losses to Kennesaw and Princeton. I’m not sure how this point gets lost on a neutral observer. That was our resume heading into the Indiana game. At best, if we were to rattle off 8 more conference wins the messsage to the committee is that we’ve improved greatly from the first third of the season (13 games in). Why would they assume this to be some magical turning point? You’d have to put a heck of a lot of stock in the Columbia win meaning we were turning a major corner. That seems doubtful.
Conf tourney doesn’t matter to the committee unless you win it all. 18 wins and 0-2 in quad 3 is the wrong side of the bubble
It appears that way, but open ended questions
1. Does it mean ZERO?
2. Has it always meant ZERO or close to ZERO?
3. Is it possible the committee changes it's weight to conference tournament results?
No one knows. It probably doesn't mean literally zero.
Yes, they make up ad-hoc justifications after the fact all the time (imo) and the committee is also not a static group of people.
So we’d have a losing record quads 1-2 and we’d have a worse losing percentage if you add in quad 3. No bueno. I don’t know if the Ace star power is enough to overcome that.
My key lessons from post selection sunday last year...ignore the last one
Key lessons
Key lessons
- conference tourney performance matters very little if at all UNLESS you win.
- conference tourney wins are just one game...3% of your season. They move the needle less than people think. Wild seeding swings do not happen. Iowa State was never going to be a 1 seed.
- body of work rules the day
- the committee members are likely bringing in their list of schools they have in before Thursday of tourney play begins and they are not budging
- this year a total outlier with that many bid stealers. Has nothing to do with screwing the Big East schools
- basketball analysts on tv and sports guy on radio need to stop declaring everyone a lock based on a win
- every year there is a school like Oklahoma/Rutgers that appears a lock in mid February and come selection sunday gets sucked right down the toilet blowl and flushed out of the field
- Quad 3 peformance can make up a less than desirable record in Q1/2
- you are not getting invited if you are 2-3 games below 500 in Q1/2/3...see Providence
- having a great NET always helps but you are not selected or not selected based on NET.
- some bracketlogists go crazy over 4-5 diffferent rating systems...i am much less metric based than others.
- SOR (Strength of Record) which is performance based is playing a greater role especially in seeding..see Mountain West
- its not one thing that the committee looks at, its EVERYTHING and you want have as little red flags on your profile or else you are at the whim of the selection committee
- non conference wins matter...committee wants to see you do something OOC. Its 1/3 of season but they specifically continue to say this every year.
- Upper level Q1 road wins are coveted the most
- not all Q1/2 wins are created equally. The committee knows the difference between winning at Central Florida barely qualifying in Q1 and winning at home over Florida.
- always good to have home wins vs the field but if you are not winning on the road you are getting penalized...see Colorado State
- Big East schools are judged individually vs everyone else and its not about conference affiliation.
- Yet there likely is somewhat of a cap perhaps...see Big 10 last year, see Big 12 this year, whether that is true remains to be seen
- conference realignment will wreck havoc with at large picture next season
- expansion is coming even though I am against it
- Rutgers will be back in the NCAA tourney next year.
What if there aren't 35 at large teams with a winning record in Q1 and Q2 games (with over 7 or games played)
Q: How many over .500 teams with at least 5 wins are there in Q1 and Q2 games?
A: 34
Q: How many of those teams will be win conference tournaments?
A: Probably 6+
A: 34
Q: How many of those teams will be win conference tournaments?
A: Probably 6+
they were definitely scandalous with those Q3 losses but had some big wins.....ooc a win over Iowa State helped alot. I know conference tourney performance doesnt matter and even though they reached the finals, I think they were in the ncaa tourney before that run. The overall strength of their numbers 5-6 in Q1. 6-3 in Q2 was too hard to deny and their sos was 18/21. I believe they were 6-7 vs tourney teams before sec tourney play began
I just dont see anything that sticks out overwhelming in a 14 loss Rutgers resume. Schools with 15 losses almost never ever get in. 14 you still have to do something special...to me beating Illnois, Michigan, UCLA and Maryland is good but doesnt rise to special. I get Illinois is top 10 in NET but they are likely not even in the top 2 perhaps even behind wisconsin and maryland right now if you analyze how schools have been playing.
The importance of winning 2 in the B1G tourney (after presumably getting to 18-13), is that it gives evidence to the selection committee that RU would go into to the NCAA tournament with a healthy Dylan Harper.
Based on the Mag scenario there appears to be precedent for this type of thinking by the committee.
not really, if you have been paying attention the last few years, you see it plainly,,we have had discussions on this before
Last year Q1 and Q2
TCU 8-12
Mis St 8-12
Tex 8-11
Mich State 9-14
those teams didn't squeak in, they were 8 and 9 seeds
TCU 8-12
Mis St 8-12
Tex 8-11
Mich State 9-14
those teams didn't squeak in, they were 8 and 9 seeds
the committee has its field selected already. Ask Providence, ask Texas A&M a couple years back. They flat out said Va Tech wasnt getting in the year they won the ACC tourney
give me the Q3 please and remember to take out all the conference tourney and ncaa games
Michigan State was 6-0 n Q3 which put that at 15-14 in Q1/2/3...thats alot of games not in Q4...they played just 4
they had zero bad losses and their non conference sos was 44, 14 overall
key item....ooc win over Baylor.
i projected them in the first 4 but they were seeded just above that as a 9
their net was in the 20s, not sure if it was 24..they had some really strong metrics in kempom and bpi in the top 20
true they didnt necessarily do anything special last year but it was a clean resume that has advantages over a similar Rutgers resume.
they had zero bad losses and their non conference sos was 44, 14 overall
key item....ooc win over Baylor.
i projected them in the first 4 but they were seeded just above that as a 9
their net was in the 20s, not sure if it was 24..they had some really strong metrics in kempom and bpi in the top 20
true they didnt necessarily do anything special last year but it was a clean resume that has advantages over a similar Rutgers resume.
Latest posts
-
-
Podcast Rutgers Re-Hires Robb Smith as Co-DC and We Have....Thoughts- Latest: greenknight
-
