To me (and I’m sure to most of us), this seemed like a completely unfair and unjustified snub for Rutgers. Obviously it is gut wrenching and will take a while to get over, but do you think we are looking at it through scarlet colored glasses? Is this a case of every year one or two teams get snubbed, and this year it happened to be us? Or do you think this was one of the more egregious cases in recent tournament history? I’ll admit I don’t know enough about tournament history in terms of snubs to really answer this question. I know at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter, but this is a message board so I was curious of some of your thoughts.
Was this an all time snub?
- Thread starter billhilf
- Start date
Teams get snubbed every year. We gave the committee reasons to keep us out and they did.
95% brackets had us in on bracketmatrix. Every network bracket had us in. Idk about all time but clearly almost everyone expected us to get in and very few had Nevada asu and okst ahead of us
All time...no. But this is bad and complete BS. But we fd up too.
Baseball last year was all time but this was bs!!!
Lax and baseball learned from it and both severely upgraded their schedules. Pike needs to grow a pair now and do the same. Play real OOC games. Play a Thanksgiving Tourney. Do the things real P5 teams do.
If you put the selection process in the hands of people without a rigidly defined criteria, these idiotic choses will occur every year.
RU has an overall SOS of 41/42 look at Providence’s OOC schedule. Not exactly murderers row.
They also play DePaul, Georgetown, and Butler in conference. The committee cherry picked stats they didn’t didn’t cherry pick for anyone else. They can f themselves.
19 -14 is not a great record. I think that and how we finished pre Big10 tourney were the decision drivers. Anything the committee says after that seems to be a justification for wanted they really wanted to do because of our record.
I feel like the committee changed its criteria this year to emphasize teams outlook and performance in light of injuries. It was mentioned as a big part of seeding discussions and then unprovoked mentioned Rutgers as well for that criteria.
They didn’t consider the whole resume. They over emphasized the Feb headline around RU basketball which became “missing Mag was a big loss for us and we struggled becusse if it “
That’s the part that’s BS. They changed the selection criteria
They didn’t consider the whole resume. They over emphasized the Feb headline around RU basketball which became “missing Mag was a big loss for us and we struggled becusse if it “
That’s the part that’s BS. They changed the selection criteria
That’s the part that bothers me the most.
The “last in” teams are not going to face any quad 3 or 4 opponents, so for a tournament featuring the best teams it seems idiotic to seemingly weight the irrelevant factor of bad losses more than the completely relevant factor of good wins.
This is one of those times where the selection committee was actually somewhat consistent with previous years. For many years the committee has made it clear that if a team has an out of conference strength of schedule that is ranked in the 300's, then being on the bubble is a really risky thing. More than a few teams in the past have been left out because of this even when their overall strength of schedule wasn't bad.
The committee actually wasn’t consistent. That’s why 95% of bracketolists ended up being wrong. Rutgers overall SOS was in the low 40s. For the committee to quote our OOC when our overall schedule was 30 spots better than some bubble teams is absolute bonkers. Our schedule was better than every bubble team
There maybe standard criteria that can be applied but there seem to be enough variables that allow them to use quite a bit of discretion in their decision making in determining who gets the final slots. As a result, it does not seem like their logic is consistent across the board.
Also unclear if they factored in the last two conference tournament games in at all as mitigants to the late season slide and schedule concerns. Without those performances, I would have agreed that we were out. At the end of the day, as other have said, we left the door open and gave them enough reasons to leave us out. To me the Minnesota loss was the killer. Some will argue the win at PSU offset that, but evidently we needed both.
Also unclear if they factored in the last two conference tournament games in at all as mitigants to the late season slide and schedule concerns. Without those performances, I would have agreed that we were out. At the end of the day, as other have said, we left the door open and gave them enough reasons to leave us out. To me the Minnesota loss was the killer. Some will argue the win at PSU offset that, but evidently we needed both.
Listening to the Committee chair it wasn’t just Minnesota and it wasn’t the ridiculous 4 Quad 3 losses . It was 2-6 post Mag injury and not looking like we were the same team as before . They rightfully we’re also pointing to losing 3 straight games at the RAC , to Nebraska, Michigan and Northwestern , which was a signal to them that this was not the NCAA caliber team like before because a Rutgers team might only lose 1-2 games a year at the RAC. Plus not looking functional offensively against Michigan and Northwestern.
But they stopped doing their jobs and ignored Thursday and Friday against Michigan and Purdue , where Pike starts Derek and the team looks energized and functional again and has that swagger back beating a true surging bubble team by double digits and breaking a defensive record of holding them to 1 field goal for the first 19 minutes of the second half. Then followed by leading Purdue early , hardly anyone has done that , down 1 at half , and going toe to toe and losing by 5 to a team they seeded as a #1 . Clear to anyone watching we were an NCAA team like before and had the ability to win 2 games . All they had to do was listen to Matt Painter , “ Rutgers is clearly an NCAA team that is going to win a couple of games. “. So the Committee just didn’t do their job to the end of the season as they just considered the regular season as the cut off point.
The NCAA Committee obviously ignored the consensus opinion of bracketolists favoring Rutgers selection.They probably used two rationales for picking other schools.The first is the poor won/loss record at the end of the season.The second reason is that the B1G Ten didn't deserve nine teams being selected.I'm pretty sure that opinion was expressed by other conferences based on the B1G Ten having so many teams with similar records.
Actually, if they had rigidly defined criteria, we would be in
It's the inconsistencies and cherry picking of data that led to us being kept out
Not a snub.
We snubbed ourselves in MN.
We handed the committee a snub on a silver platter and they took it. The snub is in the mirror.
We snubbed ourselves in MN.
We handed the committee a snub on a silver platter and they took it. The snub is in the mirror.
I think the decision was made that no league would get more teams selected than the Big 12 which was the best conference. The B1G Ten decision then came down to Penn State and Rutgers.Penn State won the nod with the winning streak in the league tournament.All the talk about other reasons for not selecting Rutgers were side issues to divert attention from the parity issue among leagues as to the number of teams selected.The NCAA can never say the best 64 teams were selected .
This is not a snub. You cant lose to Minnesota. Just cant. end of story.
I would say we were snakebit.
Temple lost by 6 - Missing Paul & Caleb
Miami lost by 7 - missing Paul
Lost to Nebraska, Mennesota and Minnesota without Mag.
If we are healthy all year. We have 5-6 more wins and are an 5/6 seed.
I would say we were snakebit.
Temple lost by 6 - Missing Paul & Caleb
Miami lost by 7 - missing Paul
Lost to Nebraska, Mennesota and Minnesota without Mag.
If we are healthy all year. We have 5-6 more wins and are an 5/6 seed.
Admittedly the one point Minnesota loss was inexcusable and apparently fatal to RU's chances of making it into the tournament. But, the loss itself was so fluky that it pales in comparison to NC State's 80-54, 96-71 (at home) and 78-64 losses to Clemson. Minnesota never led in the game until the last shot was taken and made at the buzzer. That doesn't excuse the loss but not all bad losses are equal.
Win the games you are supposed to. Do not leave it up to other people. Control what you can control.
From The Athletic e-mail this morning:
"The biggest snub? Rutgers, the highest-rated KenPom team (No. 35) to miss an at-large bid."
And despite being told to "not listen to Carino, multiple other sources have said the same thing, and this was in the full write up by The Athletic:
"Rutgers also got punished for a bad out-of-league schedule, missing the field despite wins at Purdue, Northwestern, Penn State and against Indiana. The committee has shown it time and time again: Play good teams out of your conference, or suffer the consequences. — Bennett"
"The biggest snub? Rutgers, the highest-rated KenPom team (No. 35) to miss an at-large bid."
And despite being told to "not listen to Carino, multiple other sources have said the same thing, and this was in the full write up by The Athletic:
"Rutgers also got punished for a bad out-of-league schedule, missing the field despite wins at Purdue, Northwestern, Penn State and against Indiana. The committee has shown it time and time again: Play good teams out of your conference, or suffer the consequences. — Bennett"
Folks keep saying 95% had us in..it was posted 114/118 and that rounds up to 97% using the criteria the NCAA posted!
I am 100% of the opinion that "number of teams by conference doesn't matter" was total ******** and they simply looked for a reason to keep us out to get another Big East ACC Team in. As inconsistent as it was with their own selection criteria and other teams they put in. And to your point and BAC's analysis of other team's tourney performance effect on seedings they absolutely paid no attention to our tourney play as it was a done deal. Maddening. My discust for the NCAA reached a new high.
OF course with Warren leaving there will be ZERO pushback internally from the league to support RU (not that it would be different if he wasn't a lame duck)
Why isn’t iowas q4 loss to EIU at home fatal? Or asu loss to Texas southern? Or pitt home loss to fsu?
Exactly. No one ever said life was fair. You control what you can and be accountable for it. Finger pointing and blaming others gets you nowhere. A tough but important life lesson for the team and coach.
removing your first line I would agree. But then Pike has been here enough to have built a better bench able to replace these guys enough to succeed.
Exactly. Yeah, we should probably be in, but stuff happens, they can’t take everyone.
13 OOC games with 5 of them being Temple, SHU, Miami, Wake Forest, Miami ... are we supposed to wait till the season rankings are over before making our schedules? (not directed at you Shift..asking out loud)
This 20 game B1G is brutal and I didn't like them going from 18 to 20 and removing more chances to schedule more mid-level teams and likely more wins. You get no credit for going what should have been 11 league games..
And biases are certain to creep their way into the process. Even ones like we heard the BIG hasn’t done well in the tourney or there should only be 8 teams from one conference. All crap and I have no doubt played a role when they shouldn’t.
Richie tweeted this last night. 314 stands out.
Check out the reply by the Seton Hall fan. I have a Seton Hall degree, but I truly hope Colorado annihilates them, or we play them again and do the same.
Always been my philosophy. Can never blame anyone but your own team. Never leave it up to anyone else. Make the shots you are supposed to make, win the games.
That’s always the case but not germane to the OP. If you beat everyone you’re supposed to you’re not on the bubble at all.