Why can’t we still finish 10-10 in the B1G?
- Thread starter BillyC80
- Start date
both of those schools are not even in the field currently according to the bracket matrix
Didn't the committee say last year that part of the reason we were snubbed was because we weren't the same team at end of season? So unofficially it's part of the equation
Face it , Bac doesn't really know why the committee does some of the things they do. It's often an exercise in futility to guess. The obvious teams that get in are just that, obvious and everyone of the
so called experts get those picks right . The others , unless your're there you know nothing.
so called experts get those picks right . The others , unless your're there you know nothing.
It's crazy isn't it?
All the good G5/mid major teams have moved up.
Houston, Cincinnati and UCF joined Big 12 this year.
For me, that's why the "we can't exclude the other conferences, major cingerence cant take all the seats at the table" rings a little hallow.
All their best teams are moving to major conferences. The major conferences deserves more seats.
Pretty sure I heard an interview with someone from the committee who said that
I think they factor in injuries
we have played 2 games with J Will and now we are a NCAA team..okay
he wasnt injured, we didnt play with him to start the season, he is an added piece, that does not negate the 10-10 start without him
Haha def not saying that. Yeah maybe the better way to word it is they consider injuries, not last X games
for Nebby and Minny yep. If those schools want to make the NCAA they cannot afford a Q3 home loss to Rutgers
well there goes that hope, next you will tell me the ASTROS' arent in the NL
We have to go 7-2, last 9, to have a chance with the 2 losses being only Q1/2.
There are no teams left on the schedule we don't matchup well with.
2gm vs Wisc, last 9 home and road single digit outcomes. Wisc(5-4).
We've won last 2 @ Wisc and lost last 2 at home.
3)L3(2-1) @ Purdue, 22-23 RU 65-64, 21-22 PUR 84-72, 19-20 RU 71-68(OT).
4)L3(2-1) @ Nebraska, 21-22 RU 63-61, 20-21 NEB 72-51, 19-20 RU 79-62
5)L3(1-2) @ Minn, 22-23 Minn 75-74, 21-22 Minn 71-68, 20-21 RU 77-70(OT)
Home game
6)Vs NW, 7)Vs MD, 8)Vs Mich, and 9)vs Ohio St
There isn't a given loss on the schedule even @ Purdue. We will bring the defense and we match up well vs that team. ILL is our kryptonite. I'm not doubting Pike's coaching can pull off a hot streak vs any team left on the schedule and get us back to 10-10, at least 6-3, outside chance of 7-2.
There are no teams left on the schedule we don't matchup well with.
2gm vs Wisc, last 9 home and road single digit outcomes. Wisc(5-4).
We've won last 2 @ Wisc and lost last 2 at home.
3)L3(2-1) @ Purdue, 22-23 RU 65-64, 21-22 PUR 84-72, 19-20 RU 71-68(OT).
4)L3(2-1) @ Nebraska, 21-22 RU 63-61, 20-21 NEB 72-51, 19-20 RU 79-62
5)L3(1-2) @ Minn, 22-23 Minn 75-74, 21-22 Minn 71-68, 20-21 RU 77-70(OT)
Home game
6)Vs NW, 7)Vs MD, 8)Vs Mich, and 9)vs Ohio St
There isn't a given loss on the schedule even @ Purdue. We will bring the defense and we match up well vs that team. ILL is our kryptonite. I'm not doubting Pike's coaching can pull off a hot streak vs any team left on the schedule and get us back to 10-10, at least 6-3, outside chance of 7-2.
Certainly doesn't negate the 10-10 start but I think the point is they said a team losing a starter for the year and having that directly correlated with poor play was one of the factors used to evaluate a team's tournament resume. Why wouldn't they also take the inverse into account?
Correct and their record before Williams came back will be really hard, if not impossible, to overcome. The point isn't about whether Rutgers should or shouldn't get in. The point is Rutgers went 1-4 in quad 2 and quad 3 games after the injury to Mag which the committee said was considered when evaluating their resume. They essentially confirmed they gave those games more weight because Mag also wouldn't be playing in the tournament. If Rutgers goes 3-2 or 4-1 in Quad 1 games and 6-0 in Quad 2 and 3 games since Williams has come back, shouldn't that also be considered?
If you asked me before last year I would have said all games weighted equally no matter what but the committee set a new precedent with how they evaluated Rutgers in 2023.
I mean - it would be interesting at least wouldn’t it? Last year, the committee said the reason we were left out was because they didn’t think we were the same team without Mag. This would be a complete reversal - would have the talking heads chirping for sure anyway.
7-2 would be close to an impossible feat. But if it happened - let’s say the two losses were to Purdue and Wisconsin on the road. We’d be 11-9 in the BIG with wins over field/bubble teams Wisconsin, @ Nebraska, Nebraska, NW, and @ SHU. 5 true road wins and no terrible losses. It’s not a spectacular resume - but it’d be a clean one - hypothetically.
Injuries are considered. Its not new. Sometimes schools get leniency for losses that occurred without a player and they continue on their winning ways when he gets back. Mag wasnt coming. Rutgers was no longer the same team and there were a few other warts on their resume
For sure - long shot is an extreme understatement. The team we get next shoots almost as well from 3 as we do overall.
Let's just make sure we get to the NIT, where we can redeem ourselves for Hofstra last year and maybe make a run to the Garden.
And you know what the committee will do--anyone believing that doesn't have a brain.
At Purdue and at Wisconsin are the only two games where Rutgers will be a considerable underdog. Lots of tough but winnable games left.
I did say Ruby Red Slippers… if we got to 18 wins you will be touting our worthiness. My comment was pointing out we need a miracle.
Sure but if Rutgers loses those two games that means at best they're sitting on 3 Q1 wins for the season. Not moving the needle
Let's say they go 7-2 the rest of the way with losses being to Wisconsin and Purdue on the road. Now let's compare that quad record to a team that was a 9 seed last year:
| 9 Seed | Rutgers | |
| Quad 1 | 2 - 10 | 3 - 10 |
| Quad 2 | 7 - 1 | 7 - 1 |
| Quad 3 | 4 - 0 | 5 - 1 |
| Quad 4 | 7 - 0 | 6 - 0 |
| Road Wins | 3 | 5 |
That 9 seed was an Illinois team that lost 5 of their last 8 games. They essentially made it because they had two very good non-conference wins (UCLA and Texas). Would Rutgers going 6-2 in Quad 1/2 and 3-0 in Quad 3 games since Williams came back be enough to overcome the lackluster overall Quad 1 win %?
We have one ok OOC win that is in danger of sliding down to Q2 depending on how Seton Hall finishes out their year. Our non conference SOS is again abysmal.
7-2 and win at least 1 in the B1G tourney maybe puts us in the conversation. B1G is just a weak conference this year
7-2 and win at least 1 in the B1G tourney maybe puts us in the conversation. B1G is just a weak conference this year
good luck getting to 7-1 in Q2
Maryland is Q3, Ohio State will not stay in top 75 Michigan is Q3
the issue is the Big 10 doesnt have a lot of tourney contending teams.
RU would have a win over Wisky and NW. Nebby and Seton Hall are no sure things on the bubble right now. Thats not a lot of quality wins.
I just find it odd that we have fans trying to make an argument for team that has just Q1 win right now. RU has a NET of 98 and its SOR isnt good. Even at 7-2, breaking into the top 60 looks impossible.
Penn State beat Wisconsin, they would have a better argument right now and we have a Q3 loss to them
Our OOC schedule is not abysmal and much better overall than 22-23. It won't hold us back this year now that we are showing signs of life of getting hot at the right time.
NET OOC rankings for B1G teams
Purdue OOC 7th
Illinois OOC 135th
Wisconsin OOC 19th
Mich St OOC 45th
UoM 51st, 5 H 2 R 4 N,, 4 Q1, 2 Q2, 3 Q3, 2 Q4, 6 Q1/2 9 Q1/2/3
Iowa 99th, 6 H 2 R 3 N, 3 Q1, 1 Q2, 0 Q3, 7 Q4, 4 Q1/2 4 Q1/2/3
IND 109th, 8 H 0 R, 3 N, 3 Q1, 0 Q2, 3 Q3, 5 Q4, 3 Q1/2 6 Q1/2/3
RU 161st, 7 H, 2 R, 2 N, 3 Q1, 1 Q2, 1 Q3, 6 Q4, 4 Q1/2, 5 Q1/2/3
OSU 245th, 7 H 0 R 4 N, 1 Q1, 1 Q2, 4 Q3, 5 Q4, 2 Q1/2 6 Q1/2/3
*PSU 286th, 7 H 0 R, 4 N, 1 Q1, 1 Q2, 2 Q3, 7 Q4* 2 Q1/2 4 Q1/2/3
*UMD 317th, 7 H 2 R 2 N, 1 Q1, 1 Q2, 2 Q3, 7 Q4* 2 Q1/2, 4 Q1/2/3
*NW 322nd, 7 H 0 R 4 N, 2 Q1, 0 Q2, 2 Q3, 7 Q4* 2 Q1/2, 4 Q1/2/3
*NEB 327th, 9 H 1 R 1 N, 1 Q1, 1 Q2, 2 Q3, 7 Q4* 2 Q1/2, 4 Q1/2/3
*MN 361st, 10 H, 0 R, 1 N, 0 Q1, 1 Q2, 1 Q3, 9 Q4* 1 Q1/2, 2 Q1/2/3
Fine line between weak and average scheduling if you don't schedule right. Huge difference between 2 Q1/2 and 3 or 4 Q1/2. It will affect NW, NEB and MD seeding if they get in.
Similar threads
