Was this an all time snub?
- Thread starter billhilf
- Start date
And that seems right from Wachtel given a team under .500 Q1/2/3 has never got in, SOR would’ve been worst infield, etc.
I have no more respect for that weasel. He's almost gleeful that RU got screwed over. As far as I'm concerned he's the enemy now.
Ru was 40 in net
Now do Pitt mister metric worst across the board
Listen when you win on the road vs #1 and have 7 wins vs the field you deserve to dance
Vanderbilt as well who beat Pitt
When something doesn't seem to make sense from the explanations given. I wonder what isn't being said.
I think the NCAA didn't want to give the Big Ten another bid. The conference hasn't been very successful in recent tournaments and is adding 2 teams that will compete for bids. The NCAA doesn't want any conference to be getting 11 bids. I'd look for the 9th best team in the Big Ten to get snubbed next year too if they are even close to being on the bubble.
I think the NCAA didn't want to give the Big Ten another bid. The conference hasn't been very successful in recent tournaments and is adding 2 teams that will compete for bids. The NCAA doesn't want any conference to be getting 11 bids. I'd look for the 9th best team in the Big Ten to get snubbed next year too if they are even close to being on the bubble.
That guy is on every RU related post commenting.
I mean I knew the SHU undergrad programs were abysmal but apparently their career placement is worse for how their trolls can post all day long.
You can look anywhere on social media.
People who have no RU affiliation at all are shredding this decision.
The committee is talking about injuries...where is that in the criteria?
They didn't want another B1G team. It's that simple.
People who have no RU affiliation at all are shredding this decision.
The committee is talking about injuries...where is that in the criteria?
They didn't want another B1G team. It's that simple.
I am going to keep saying this - as was brought it in another thread - this was more about the Big10 than RU.
due to underperformance of the Big10 the last few years they DID NOT WANT 9 BIG10 TEAMS and we were the ninth team in their eyes thus we didnt make it.
they will never say that thus they come up with other reasons (OCC, Mag's injury) to exclude us. they are totally BS reasons and directly contradict their decision to include others (Nevada, NC State)
thus the "we are only going to allow 8 Big10 teams" is the only explanation that makes sense
just sucks that we were team #9 from the Big10 in their eyes. we gave them reasons to exclude us.
due to underperformance of the Big10 the last few years they DID NOT WANT 9 BIG10 TEAMS and we were the ninth team in their eyes thus we didnt make it.
they will never say that thus they come up with other reasons (OCC, Mag's injury) to exclude us. they are totally BS reasons and directly contradict their decision to include others (Nevada, NC State)
thus the "we are only going to allow 8 Big10 teams" is the only explanation that makes sense
just sucks that we were team #9 from the Big10 in their eyes. we gave them reasons to exclude us.
The chairman blurting out rutgers injury means they knew they would get rightfully criticized. Body of work we were in. This was a decision to exclude one team based on an eight game stretch.
The only numbers the committee cares about is high Q1 wins, bad losses, road/neutral record, and ncsos (all lead to SOR). The rest is noise.
I figured most know this and very good poster @Greene Rice FIG recognizes this and especially in my example of Rutgers last year to this year when I left out NET.
As RU fans we know better than anyone based on last year.
It's like when you break up with a girlfriend/boyfriend, and you give them "a reason." You don't have a great reason, but you just give one to say something, and they had to say something. Have posted several times, it was three things against RU: 1. out of conference schedule weak; 2. 4 Q3 losses (got it right this time); 3. injury.
I also agree that the committee not wanting a 9th B1G team also came into play, so perhaps that is reason 3.5 or 4. On one hand, it is galling to see PSU in, but as @bac2therac has objectively pointed out, it is not about RU beating them twice, it is the entire body of work, and unfortunately, their body of work was better than RU's. The only minor whine is the Ohio State debacle, but RU could have fixed that by beating Minnesota. RU needed to be better on several fronts, and we were not.
Rutgers had 3 q1 road wins. How many schools have a road win vs 1 seed
Asu..on an otherwise unimpressive resume vs a 2 sees
The committee didnt care during the time we looked like crap to them we beat Penn State on the road but were more impressed with Nevadas 3 game losing streak to dregs
How many times does it need to be said an individual Q3 loss hurts more than an individual non-high Q1 win helps?
I think them not wanting 9 Big10 teams was THE main reason - and reasons 1,2,3 above were given as rationalization.
This is the exact correct take on the situation. The Committee itself has alluded to the exact conversation that happened in the room around Rutgers.
1. They mentioned brackets are made BEFORE the conference tournaments .
2. They unprovoked mentioned Rutgers as a team that was part of the “injury” conversation
3. They mentioned watching Rutgers and evaluating them in Feb and pointing out that we did not look the same.
The headline and story around Rutgers was about their record since missing Mag. And the committee very clearly had a direct conversation about Rutgers in that light and basically determined we were a completely different team.
Which I say is ********. It’s the resume. And if you’re going to use the eye test , then you can’t ignore and have your minds made up before conference tournaments !!!!!
I watched the part on ESPN and Rece Davis asked him about Oklahoma State and Clemson being snubbed which I thought was strange that he asked about two teams and not RU and then the Chairman on his own went and started talking about reasons for leaving Rutgers out.
stop the phoney macho crap--we know we blew some games but this was a ROYAL A$$ screwing
wanna screw stuff up do it by a dumb committee. anyone previously saying this is such a great tournament just lost a great deal of confidence in it, today it sucks.
Last edited:
When you're looking at teams from different conferences you can't compartmentalize a season into OOC, last 8, conference, conference tournament. You have to take the entire body of work to get a true picture, which is why they have metrics which calculate a full season. These are the tools that the committee is supposed to use. We all know this as do bracketologist.
The committee threw conference tournament out and looked at last 8/OCC more closely. Why were those used opposed to the ones Rutgers was clearly ahead in? To me it looks more like a hodge podge of criteria used to attain a premediated agenda.
The committee threw conference tournament out and looked at last 8/OCC more closely. Why were those used opposed to the ones Rutgers was clearly ahead in? To me it looks more like a hodge podge of criteria used to attain a premediated agenda.
Last edited:
...to keep a 9th Big10 team out. the reasons provided are just rationalization and directly contradict other teams getting put in instead of us (e.g., Nevada).
we unfortunately were the 9th most deserving Big10 team (in their eyes) and thus were left out
The categories used are arbitrary in order to obtain a predetermined agenda. They threw a lot of tried and true metrics out to get down to eye test as one of the excuses, as OOC by itself was not enough.
Last edited:
we will never know
seems we both agree that if evaluated objectively and by the #s there is no rationale for keeping RU out AND that there is some other more subjective reason why (and the rest is bullsh#t rationalization).
seems youre saying it's the "eye test" - i.e., that despite the objective criteria they decided to keep RU out since we looked bad down the stretch. which we certainly did. however, other teams (like Nevada!! and a few others) around us were not exactly lighting it up down the stretch. perhaps they singled RU out in that way? you could be right.. who knows. but this isnt any different than the other thoughts - it required them to apply different criteria to RU vs others (in this case subjective criteria vs more objective criteria like applying the #s)
however, I keep hammering home the "they just didnt want a 9th Big10 team" theory as its the only thing that makes sense to me. they dont need to single RU out. just make the decision (whether consciously or not) to "not let too many Big10 teams in this year" and we are the one left standing.
We did get screwed . But we opened the door for the screwing with the minny loss
I would've said "no F'n way" if you asked me that prior to the B1G tournament game vs Purdue.
But hearing the comments, thought process, and "criteria" used by the committee. I hesitate to even admit this, but yes I think we're still a bubble team if we beat Purdue in the tournament. I don't agree with it, but I think thats where the committee was thinking and already decided before the week started. Its a really fragile thing, because the committee decided to rule us out based on an "eye test" criteria, not a metrics criteria. So I think beating Purdue ( a top 4 seed) would've probably given enough of them a second thought on their previously concluded decision that RU is not good enough without Mag.
Tough break yesterday but taking a step back, not every team makes it every year. Obviously it hurts from where they were a little over a month ago. Michigan, Unc, Villanova, Wisconsin, Syracuse all not playing in the tourney. All those programs have much better history than Rutgers and should expect to make it as well.
That is because they knew after they met on Wednesday and for some reason determined we were already out , then they didn’t watch the Thursday / Friday Michigan Purdue games but they looked at Bracketmatrix and realized **** the brackets guys have even changed and now have them 96-97% in so we are going to get questioned about Rutgers so we better dig for all the negatives. They revealed incompetence in not doing their jobs and actually watching the Michigan and Purdue games, which would have left no doubt in any reasonable basketball person that man that team looks different these last 2 games !!What happened ? Maybe just a little bit of digging would have revealed. Coach started this freshman at the point and they look functional again on offense and their defense looks better than ever. They handled Edey the best anyone has all year and if they made some layups and foul shots in the last few minutes would have beat Purdue again. For the second time away and neutral beating our # 1 team. Oh **** !!!!
Clemson was not projected in first 4 out but next 4 out so they didn’t think they would get flak because they probably didn’t realize they beat NCState 3x , 2 times by 25 and 26 points , finished ahead in the standings and what a ****** look it was and they didn’t even have Clemson in their radar on Wednesday so ignored one of their blowouts of NCState.
Oklahoma State was perceived out by all but a few bracketologists and that never changed through the tourney so they didn’t think there would be too much heat for leaving them out especially with their 6-12 conference record , , which he happened to cite in the talk.
The more you view it , you realize that Rutgers , Vanderbilt and Clemson all got screwed with ours the worst and they wanted at least 5 ACC and 4 PAC 12 teams from the power conferences to balance things out. Then threw a bone to the MWest , mid major. Any reasonable basketball person , puts the 3 teams I mentioned in and NC State or PITT and Arizona State or Nevada out. Pick 3.
But how was the non conference SOS compared to others? Why is that important? Well you're not playing conference opponents in the tourney and are you challenging yourself outside of conference? How Q3/Q4 losses did the other teams have? Rutgers had 4 Q3 losses. Actually had a losing record there a 2-4.
Let’s take Rutgers out of the picture for a second…I must have missed Utah’s state murderer’s row of an OOC schedule. They also had a quad 4 and quad 3 losses
Or how about Providence’s
What the committee said was laughable. NC state has one good win! So why are they in. MWC got 4 teams in?!? Really?!? 96% of bracketologists had us in. Totally unheard of to be left out
The answer is yes - Bracketmatrix just posted that this is a top-5 all-time snub, coming in 3rd behind only Syracuse 07 and VaTech 11
I've been saying this all day. We controlled that home game. Wouldn't it have been worse if we trailed by 6 all game and lost by 6? Committee got this very wrong...period...
Well let's see...
Rutgers: 40th in NET, 19-14, 222 Non-Con SOS, 4-7 vs Q1, 6-3 vs Q2, 2-4 vs Q3, 7-0 vs Q4
Utah State: 18th in NET, 25-8, 28 Non-Con SOS, 2-5 vs Q1, 9-1 vs Q2, 13-0 vs Q3, 1-2 vs Q4
Providence: 56th in NET, 21-11, 274 Non-Con SOS, 4-8 vs Q1, 3-2 vs Q2, 3-1 vs Q3, 11-0 vs Q4
So yea... Both look better than Rutgers. Providence by a hair.