Yes, Rutgers got screwed (article)

[Ru0822]

I genuinely believe this wasn't anti-rutgers as much as it was anti-big ten due to the conference’s performance in March the past few years.

The committee did not want to risk the backlash of having the big ten have more teams than any other conference if they were to choke in the tournie again.

 

[flyer1986]

we hosed ourselves 3-7 last 10. i don't want to hear injuries. we beat wisconsin on the road, psu on the road , michigan state at msg and then lose 3 home games and minnesota on the road. just pitiful. also the tOSU game was not considered. that game alone gets us to 20-13 and the #7 or #8 team in BIG. so end of the day we stunk we couldn't shoot free throws. turning point the contract extension????

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Their schedule is hardly similar in difficulty regardless of what the blended SOS metrics say. Nevada played a total of 7 games against teams selected for At Large bids vs RU’s 17. It’s not like they stocked up on teams just a cut below either. Both of us played 4 NIT teams.

You do understand this is a huge difference, right? 10 more games against the field…

And you do know what would happen if they asked any power schedule for a home and home.

Q1 and Q2 we were 10-11 and they were 7-8.

I am more upset that PITT got in over us.

 

[Yeah Baby]

https://theb1gpicture.substack.com/p/yes-rutgers-got-screwed

Highlights:

I talked about how getting screwed is an entirely separate question from "could Rutgers have done more to avoid this?"

I talked about how dumb non-conference strength of schedule is:

And I dove into how ridiculous it was to cite Mag's injury as a reason to keep Rutgers out:

Right just like the Eagles got screwed in the Super Bowl. I’m a Giants fan so completely unbiased. Did the Eagles commit a penalty? Yes. Did they get screwed. Also yes. Did we get screwed against OSU. Emphatic yes.

 

[Yeah Baby]

And you do know what would happen if they asked any power schedule for a home and home.

Q1 and Q2 we were 10-11 and they were 7-8.

I am more upset that PITT got in over us.

And NC State

 

[NickRU714]

Their schedule is hardly similar in difficulty regardless of what the blended SOS metrics say. Nevada played a total of 7 games against teams selected for At Large bids vs RU’s 17. It’s not like they stocked up on teams just a cut below either. Both of us played 4 NIT teams.

You do understand this is a huge difference, right? 10 more games against the field…

So now the metrics aren't accurate?
I thought all the metrics were on our side?

 

[nukem]

Here's what you found out if you didn't already know this. It ultimately comes down to humans picking these brackets. Sure, they go by metrics to kind of sort things out. But when it gets to the last 5-10 teams it is random selection based on the whims of people. There is no mathematics/systemic formula that is used no matter what they say.

We've all watched this selection show every year and we have heard all sorts of reasons given as to why a certain team was/wasn't chosen and the reasons are always manipulated to make their point. Sure, they used the eye test this year with us because they knew metrics weren't on their side. This was an easy way out to explain us getting left out. Next year it will be something different for a different team.

So maybe they didn't want another B1G team to get a slot that was on the bubble. You don't think these people hear how poorly the B1G has performed in the tournament? Maybe they wanted a little more West Coast participation and included Nevada and ASU.

And last, does anyone think that if a team like Duke had our exact resume they would be left out? We all know the answer is no effing way and that should tell you all that the numbers don't always mean **** and it's the people picking that have the power. Hell, UNC was right next to us as being left out and their resume was severely lacking.

 

[SirScarlet]

amazing article. Thank you.

instead of arguing with so many knuckleheads on these boards, I am just going to reply with a link to your article.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

you cannot tell me those crappy western teams are better than the 11th, 12th and 13th place teams in the Big 10

It’s this - but moreso than anything, some of our fans just don’t understand that if team A played NW, CC and Sacred Heart while team B played Rider 3 times, team A actually played the tougher schedule (1 real game vs zero) even if the average NET for B is better.

 

[fluoxetine]

It’s this - but moreso than anything, some of our fans just don’t understand that if team A played NW, CC and Sacred Heart while team B played Rider 3 times, team A actually played the tougher schedule (1 real game vs zero) even if the average NET for B is better.

Using average rating as SOS makes sense for things like efficiency ratings but it doesn't make sense for binary ratings. For W/L stuff A is indeed a tougher schedule, and strength of schedule can actually depend on the strength of your own team.

 

[fatsam98]

Amazing piece.

After listening to the Chair talk last night, all I could think was... This guy's just not very smart...

As you say, "It is a field picked by idiots."

They have all this data and they have no idea how to interpret it, or what really matters.

Side note -- great point about getting zero credit for beating Sparty despite Mag going down early. That was annoying me too.

 

[fluoxetine]

For example, take the following two schedules:

A
vs #1
vs #2
vs #349
vs #350

B
vs #174
vs #175
vs #176
vs #177

which one is tougher? The average team quality is the same.

If you are the #3 team, you have two tough games in schedule A but are probably going 4-0 against schedule B. B is easier.
If you are the #348 team, you have two chances to win against schedule A but are probably going 0-4 against schedule B. A is easier.

 

[RU848789]

https://theb1gpicture.substack.com/p/yes-rutgers-got-screwed

Highlights:

I talked about how getting screwed is an entirely separate question from "could Rutgers have done more to avoid this?"

I talked about how dumb non-conference strength of schedule is:

And I dove into how ridiculous it was to cite Mag's injury as a reason to keep Rutgers out:

Fantastic article and analysis. For those who read the above, it's just an excerpt, there's a fair amount more detail in the article.

 

[RU848789]

tremendous piece, thank you for writing

the thing that infuriates me you touch upon......that wins and losses to crap teams like Colorado are considered Q1, then games vs most of the MW and WCC qualify as Q2 on the road, The west coast conferences...pac 12, mountain west, west coast are all benefitting from this. Riding great Q2 marks playing nobodies and the top programs cleaning up agains crappy Q3 schools.

Nevada had 10 losses from the Mountain West and made the field...ten! Despite not doing anything other than splitting with the other top 4 schools in the MWC, Thats all you have to do now to get a bid...go 1-1...they didnt win any of those on the road. New Mexico at least beat San Diego State and St Marys on the road. They fell off the bubble with too much losing but they have better wins than 2 of the MWC schools that made

a complete overhaul of the net system needs to happen. Some sort of point system needs to be used. I get that the conferences beyond the power 6 have issues and might need to be judge differently. If so then do that. Put the conferences in tiers with the point system and then rank them.

on the ooc stuff, I do think RU failed miserably and has continued to be told but does not listen to schedule tougher. They do that at their own peril. Non conference stuff is being stressed so while I agree that overall schedule should matter more. I do think its an issue that RU needs to fix...more Q3s and less Q4s

Wait, did @kcg88 write this? If so, fantastic job as I already said. This needs to be sent to people like Hobbs and some local sports media types.

 

[fatsam98]

Wait, did @kcg88 write this? If so, fantastic job as I already said. This needs to be sent to people like Hobbs and some local sports media types.

Yes he did.

He wrote an awesome B1G preview back in the fall as well.

 

[Shell21]

 

[kcg88]

Wait, did @kcg88 write this? If so, fantastic job as I already said. This needs to be sent to people like Hobbs and some local sports media types.

Politi tweeted it out, which I really appreciated.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

And NC State

They were 23-10. It is Pitt that I would have taken RU over.

 

[fatsam98]

That's awesome.. you should send to Norlander too. I was a little disappointed in him and Parrish on their podcast today just glossing over it.

 

[BIGRUBIGDBIGredmachine]

Politi tweeted it out, which I really appreciated.

You killed it.

Politi, not so much. #amateur

 

[fluoxetine]

Politi tweeted it out, which I really appreciated.

It’s a great article, well done.

 

[fluoxetine]

Almost like they aren’t consistent at their jobs.

 

[bac2therac]

And you do know what would happen if they asked any power schedule for a home and home.

Q1 and Q2 we were 10-11 and they were 7-8.

I am more upset that PITT got in over us.

Nevadas Q2 are not the same as RUs Q2s and everyone knows it

 

[bac2therac]

need a point system although that point system will always be changing as teams get better or worse but it should matter you beat Maryland at home and that win is the same as being San Francisco on the road

 

[fluoxetine]

need a point system although that point system will always be changing as teams get better or worse but it should matter you beat Maryland at home and that win is the same as being San Francisco on the road

I mean this is basically how SOR and WAB work. Just sorting by those would be an improvement over the current process imo (though we still would’ve been out)

 

[kcg88]

That's awesome.. you should send to Norlander too. I was a little disappointed in him and Parrish on their podcast today just glossing over it.

Parrish pushed back on Norlander at least when he said that he was fine with the committee knocking teams because of an injury.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I mean this is basically how SOR and WAB work. Just sorting by those would be an improvement over the current process imo (though we still would’ve been out)

Exactly!

 

[BillyC80]

Great article Kevin, well done!

As soon as I heard Chris Reynolds answer questions on CBS after the brackets were revealed, I knew he was bullshitting.

His comments made it apparent that the committee put less effort into their analysis than you did.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Using average rating as SOS makes sense for things like efficiency ratings but it doesn't make sense for binary ratings. For W/L stuff A is indeed a tougher schedule, and strength of schedule can actually depend on the strength of your own team.

Sure - but when Green makes a comment that Nevada’s record is better against a similar schedule that’s simply not true. Rutgers was the exception and not the rule in doing worse against Minny, Nebraska and OSU than their record against the rest of the conference (2-3 vs 9-8 against NCAA / NIT teams). That’s an outlier. If Nevada played an additional 10 games against tourney and NIT teams they likely would not win half of them. At least not based on how they did against the ones they did play.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Great article Kevin, well done!

As soon as I heard Chris Reynolds answer questions on CBS after the brackets were revealed, I knew he was bullshitting.

His comments made it apparent that the committee put less effort into their analysis than you did.

They could do better by free crowdsourcing

 

[bac2therac]

Im pretty sute Nevada would be Nebraska if in Big ten

 

[RU848789]

Politi tweeted it out, which I really appreciated.

Well done!

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Seton Hall was a quad 3 loss and yet they were picked for an NIT bid. What a complete joke. Air Force is also Q3.

 

[RUtrumpet92_rivals498139]

And you do know what would happen if they asked any power schedule for a home and home.

Q1 and Q2 we were 10-11 and they were 7-8.

I am more upset that PITT got in over us.

Nevada would be turned down by most power conference teams because they aren't seen as peers, and flying from the Midwest or east coast to Reno for one game wouldn't be worth the trip. Sucks for them, but it is what it is. Maybe thry can get more Pac-12 games. They played at Oregon this year and lost by 13. Their Q1 and Q2 wins are soft.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Nevada would be turned down by most power conference teams because they aren't seen as peers, and flying from the Midwest or east coast to Reno for one game wouldn't be worth the trip. Sucks for them, but it is what it is. Maybe thry can get more Pac-12 games. They played at Oregon this year and lost by 13. Their Q1 and Q2 wins are soft.

Exactly.

 

[bac2therac]

The more I try to find answers and while everything brought up is all part of it. I think there are many reasons why they could point to Rutgers being left out. Some here have brought up the cap on conference tourney bids. I have been doing bracketology for years and have always bristled at this notion because Ive never found it to have much evidence. However starting to thing that equity or whatever you want to call it may be a new thing. Its a very small sample size BUT

last year the ACC only got 4 bids and would have had only 3 if Notre Dame didnt get the nod over a 7th SEC school in Texas A&M. Big 10 got 9 for the 2nd straight year and did not fare well. Mountain West got 4, Pac 12 only 3 but the WCC got 3 so still got 10 from those 3.

Now this year....The ACC only had 3 definites, and 4 bubbles. The Big 10 had 8 schools in and one bubble. The Big 12 had 7 of 10 schools in and one bubble. The Mountain West the 5th rated conference had 3 schools and 1 bubble. The Pac 12 had 3 schools and 1 bubble.

Were they going to take a 9th team from the Big 10 for a third straight year despite 2 years of underperforming or a 8th Big 12 school at the expense of only 4 from the ACC and 3 from the Pac 12 or 3 from the Mountain West. Surely equity would say spread it out, ACC is a powerhouse conference deserving of 5 given what they did last year. We are going to reward conference records even though we say its not criteria. Lets balance out the field with 4 from MW and 4 from Pac 12 so we keep the 10 bids from those 3 conferences.

I have been following this for a while so I do not make these proclamations out of hand or just because my school would have appeared to be screwed. The committee is starting to lose control of their narrative and you can spot it out in the open now. They are going to try to shoehorn a set number of schools from each league. Obviously some years its not going to work but there are always going to be borderline schools from the Big 10. Last year there were 3 that all got in. We find out that Wisconsin wasnt even close to be looked at. Ditto for Vanderbilt who would have been an 8th team from the SEC. There was no way SEC is getting 8 schools.

The committee did give RU a chance I believe up to the Northwestern game. Once they saw RU play like *** in that game they shut the door and the field of 68 was picked. Conference tournament results across the board were closed. You see it with Penn State. In the field and they simply adjusted their seed for the final metrics which improved substantially. They lashed out and got back at Texas A&M for Buzz attacking them this year.

This is where I stand now. I will now be considering stuff like conference record and conference affiliation when things are close on the cut line going forward.

 

[scarletknight077]

The more I try to find answers and while everything brought up is all part of it. I think there are many reasons why they could point to Rutgers being left out. Some here have brought up the cap on conference tourney bids. I have been doing bracketology for years and have always bristled at this notion because Ive never found it to have much evidence. However starting to thing that equity or whatever you want to call it may be a new thing. Its a very small sample size BUT

last year the ACC only got 4 bids and would have had only 3 if Notre Dame didnt get the nod over a 7th SEC school in Texas A&M. Big 10 got 9 for the 2nd straight year and did not fare well. Mountain West got 4, Pac 12 only 3 but the WCC got 3 so still got 10 from those 3.

Now this year....The ACC only had 3 definites, and 4 bubbles. The Big 10 had 8 schools in and one bubble. The Big 12 had 7 of 10 schools in and one bubble. The Mountain West the 5th rated conference had 3 schools and 1 bubble. The Pac 12 had 3 schools and 1 bubble.

Were they going to take a 9th team from the Big 10 for a third straight year despite 2 years of underperforming or a 8th Big 12 school at the expense of only 4 from the ACC and 3 from the Pac 12 or 3 from the Mountain West. Surely equity would say spread it out, ACC is a powerhouse conference deserving of 5 given what they did last year. We are going to reward conference records even though we say its not criteria. Lets balance out the field with 4 from MW and 4 from Pac 12 so we keep the 10 bids from those 3 conferences.

I have been following this for a while so I do not make these proclamations out of hand or just because my school would have appeared to be screwed. The committee is starting to lose control of their narrative and you can spot it out in the open now. They are going to try to shoehorn a set number of schools from each league. Obviously some years its not going to work but there are always going to be borderline schools from the Big 10. Last year there were 3 that all got in. We find out that Wisconsin wasnt even close to be looked at. Ditto for Vanderbilt who would have been an 8th team from the SEC. There was no way SEC is getting 8 schools.

The committee did give RU a chance I believe up to the Northwestern game. Once they saw RU play like *** in that game they shut the door and the field of 68 was picked. Conference tournament results across the board were closed. You see it with Penn State. In the field and they simply adjusted their seed for the final metrics which improved substantially. They lashed out and got back at Texas A&M for Buzz attacking them this year.

This is where I stand now. I will now be considering stuff like conference record and conference affiliation when things are close on the cut line going forward.

So why even have conf tournaments for the major conferences? Any team who is a lock should just rest players? PSU played 4 days straight to move nowhere basically. They might feel it in first round. Iowa last year played 4 straight days and flamed out in their first game

 

[RUChoppin]

The more I try to find answers and while everything brought up is all part of it. I think there are many reasons why they could point to Rutgers being left out. Some here have brought up the cap on conference tourney bids. I have been doing bracketology for years and have always bristled at this notion because Ive never found it to have much evidence. However starting to thing that equity or whatever you want to call it may be a new thing. Its a very small sample size BUT

last year the ACC only got 4 bids and would have had only 3 if Notre Dame didnt get the nod over a 7th SEC school in Texas A&M. Big 10 got 9 for the 2nd straight year and did not fare well. Mountain West got 4, Pac 12 only 3 but the WCC got 3 so still got 10 from those 3.

Now this year....The ACC only had 3 definites, and 4 bubbles. The Big 10 had 8 schools in and one bubble. The Big 12 had 7 of 10 schools in and one bubble. The Mountain West the 5th rated conference had 3 schools and 1 bubble. The Pac 12 had 3 schools and 1 bubble.

Were they going to take a 9th team from the Big 10 for a third straight year despite 2 years of underperforming or a 8th Big 12 school at the expense of only 4 from the ACC and 3 from the Pac 12 or 3 from the Mountain West. Surely equity would say spread it out, ACC is a powerhouse conference deserving of 5 given what they did last year. We are going to reward conference records even though we say its not criteria. Lets balance out the field with 4 from MW and 4 from Pac 12 so we keep the 10 bids from those 3 conferences.

I have been following this for a while so I do not make these proclamations out of hand or just because my school would have appeared to be screwed. The committee is starting to lose control of their narrative and you can spot it out in the open now. They are going to try to shoehorn a set number of schools from each league. Obviously some years its not going to work but there are always going to be borderline schools from the Big 10. Last year there were 3 that all got in. We find out that Wisconsin wasnt even close to be looked at. Ditto for Vanderbilt who would have been an 8th team from the SEC. There was no way SEC is getting 8 schools.

The committee did give RU a chance I believe up to the Northwestern game. Once they saw RU play like *** in that game they shut the door and the field of 68 was picked. Conference tournament results across the board were closed. You see it with Penn State. In the field and they simply adjusted their seed for the final metrics which improved substantially. They lashed out and got back at Texas A&M for Buzz attacking them this year.

This is where I stand now. I will now be considering stuff like conference record and conference affiliation when things are close on the cut line going forward.

And this will escalate as conference realignment grinds forward for the Big Ten and SEC.

The Pac-12 is going to be stripped of two of its better schools, and it is going to start looking awfully like a mid major... and may even become defunct if the Big 12 strips away more programs to shore up their roster of teams after Texas and Oklahoma leave.

The selection committee may start to get squeezed down to only five or six at large options for mid majors, unless they start putting limits on how many teams the major conferences can send.

And at that point, do the major conferences just split off to form their own tournament, potentially inviting the champions of the non-major conferences and cutting out the NCAA entirely?

 

[RUChoppin]

So why even have conf tournaments for the major conferences? Any team who is a lock should just rest players? PSU played 4 days straight to move nowhere basically. They might feel it in first round. Iowa last year played 4 straight days and flamed out in their first game

Cam Wynter also got his ankle rolled late against Purdue. If the conference tournaments don't count, the games become all risk and no reward from a selection perspective.

By trying to protect non major schools, the committee may be doing greater damage to the whole enterprise.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

So why even have conf tournaments for the major conferences? Any team who is a lock should just rest players? PSU played 4 days straight to move nowhere basically. They might feel it in first round. Iowa last year played 4 straight days and flamed out in their first game

I said this is another thread

The ultimate revenge would be the B1G coaches agreeing to rest starters, causing Nebraska or Minnesota or whoever at the bottom of the table to get an auto bid and upending the unspoken cap on B1G teams.

Let's see them try to keep out Michigan or MSU or tOSU if they're 9th. Beat them at their own game until they admit there's a cap.