A
Magic Number is Still 3
- Thread starter gordel1
- Start date
19-11..which means excluding the Caldwell win from the overall record and needing 4 more BIG10 wins is most likely a lock.
19-12..which means including the Caldwell win from the overall record and needing 3 more BIG10 wins is definitely not a lock.
@NewJerseyHawk check my math
19-12..which means including the Caldwell win from the overall record and needing 3 more BIG10 wins is definitely not a lock.
@NewJerseyHawk check my math
the Caldwell confusion definitely is an issue here because everywhere but the resume does the game count.
No one is locking teams out, my position stands for the last month. If RU holds serve at home, RU is comfortably in the NCAAs.
The other "factor" is RU didn't squeak by for a 3 or 5 point win at Nebraska, they blew out Nebraska...and they didn't get blown out in other road games at Iowa, at Illinois or yesterday vs Michigan. 5, 5 and 6 were the margins of defeat. Not 12, 14 or 15 points like other contenders looking for a bid a few years ago.
The other "factor" is RU didn't squeak by for a 3 or 5 point win at Nebraska, they blew out Nebraska...and they didn't get blown out in other road games at Iowa, at Illinois or yesterday vs Michigan. 5, 5 and 6 were the margins of defeat. Not 12, 14 or 15 points like other contenders looking for a bid a few years ago.
should RU win all 4 at home then at 19-11/11-9 yes they are in very very very good shape to make the tournament because the wins and strength of the conference likely overcomes that 1-11 road mark.
but lose one that puts them at 18-12/10-10 and thats where that hideous road mark of 1-11 comes into play
its better for RU to just win one on the road, I dont know why it seems like we are not holding them to be able to do that. Almost all tourney teams do at some point, beating Nebraska does not turn heads
Can we agree that the best likelihood of getting in on the basis of 3 more wins is NW, Mich or Ill or MD at home, and any road game.
Last edited:
Holding serve at home is 4 more wins which is exactly what I said they needed and not what the OP said or what you said in your initial post of the thread.
I think we can all agree that if RU gets 4 more conference wins, no matter home or away, we will be dancing.
if Rutgers can’t go 2-2 at home and win 1 more road game then it doesn’t deserve to go to the tourney. Glad we are on the same page of a 3 win scenario I predicted. Not 4 more wins.
Can they get in with just 3 more wins? Yes.
Would I put my money on it? No.
Are some here forgetting in 2018 when PSU got left out at 21 wins?
We have better metrics than PSU from that year
Yes we can get in at 18-13 but it will be scary given what would be 1-12: on road
We can go 18-12 and win a 8/9 game in B10 tourney that would put us in alot better shape
The committee is about an easy read as a taro card. If I put odds on it, I would say 21-10 is a lock, 20-11 is a lean for in and 19-12 is bubble. That said, first things first --- get to 19, because until then all of this is irrelevant.
I checked your math. It's wrong lol. You're counting the Caldwell game as a loss for some reason
It’s not wrong. I presented two scenarios assuming 3 or 4 BIG 10 wins the rest of the way and neither counted that game as a loss.
Hawk changed what he originally said and then vanished. We need 4 more wins for a lock. Not 3.
19 if you exclude Caldwell. 20 if you include Caldwell.
How did I vanish watching the Super Bowl. I didn't mention anything about Caldwell, no one is agreeing with you except a couple of people here.
I have stated that if RU beats NW, Michigan Illinois and Maryland at home, they are a lock for the NCAAs. Somehow it's being twisted now into it having to be 3 home wins, a road win and a home loss. It's irrelevant how it happens. There is no scenario of 4 home wins where RU doesn't dance. It took a few days to get bac to a point of 'very very good chance", still refusing to look at the obvious numbers on how good it would look to beat Illinois NW, Maryland and Michigan. The 4 home games cement this, as long as the road games are competitive and aren't 14-20 point losses.
I am not advocating that winning a road game wouldn't be great, I am also looking at the teams in the league....you have to play almost a perfect game, get a friendly whistle from the refs and get an off game from the home team.
I don't understand why fans here are holding RU to a higher standard for road wins vs other conferences who don't play the caliber of schedule, home and away in the B1G. It's not like the home games are Nebraska twice and Northwestern twice.
you seem very confident of 4 home wins and putting an incredible pressure to beat Maryland to do that.
I could see a scenerio that RU wins 4 and finished 19-12 with a B10 opening round loss and the 1-12 road mark keeps them out...is it a likely or even somewhat likely scenerio....No, but not impossible hence its not lock. Ive been following this for year and I always have to be cautious of putting teams in as locks because anytime you are among the last 8 in, you are not a lock.
last year Ohio State was 16-7 and considered a lock...they finished 18-13 on the bubble. True they finished 8-12 in league. They lost 6 of their last 8. They floated down to one of the last 6 in as an 11 seed......
there are no absolutes when you are dealing with the selection committee.
RU is 1-6 on the road...I can list all the other schools in the top 60 and no one has a number that sticks out like that. Even an Indiana as two neutral site wins and again I AM NOT SAYING RUTGERS IS NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE TOURNAMENT UNDER YOUR SCENERIO AND EVEN AT 18-12 THEY MAY GET IN, I AM JUST SAYING ITS TOO SOON TO DETERMINE LOCKS
OP said 3 more wins is the magic number.
You followed up and basically agreed with the OP by saying if we go 19-12 the rest of the way we are a lock the be in. 19-12 is 3 more wins!
You either misspoke or are now backtracking from what you originally said and are now saying we need 4 regular season wins which is exactly what I said we needed in my earlier post... just be a big boy and admit it.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...-bubble-watch-first-look-wildest-bubble-years
This write up confirms to me what I originally said and predicted. If Rutgers had to win 4 or even 5 more games like some have said than Rutgers would obviously be in the work to do section. This supports my assertion that 3 more wins would likely get RU in.
This write up confirms to me what I originally said and predicted. If Rutgers had to win 4 or even 5 more games like some have said than Rutgers would obviously be in the work to do section. This supports my assertion that 3 more wins would likely get RU in.
Bart Torvik Teamcast simulator: Set it to Rutgers going 2-8 from here, including losses at home to Northwestern and Illinois, and a first-round loss in the BTT.
He projects that to a nine seed, four spots above the bubble (and that's defining the bubble aggressively to include the last eight teams in - last four byes as well as last four in).
Bart's simulator hasn't been at 100% the past few years, but it gives a sense of where things really are.
(His system actually projects Rutgers to go 4-6 from here, including a first-round BTT loss, and an 8 seed in the tournament - 9 spots above the bubble.)
———————
Oops - this was wrong. See below for reasons.
Gotta beat Northwestern to stay safely off the bubble with the above scenario the same. Good catch by @fluoxetine
He projects that to a nine seed, four spots above the bubble (and that's defining the bubble aggressively to include the last eight teams in - last four byes as well as last four in).
Bart's simulator hasn't been at 100% the past few years, but it gives a sense of where things really are.
(His system actually projects Rutgers to go 4-6 from here, including a first-round BTT loss, and an 8 seed in the tournament - 9 spots above the bubble.)
———————
Oops - this was wrong. See below for reasons.
Gotta beat Northwestern to stay safely off the bubble with the above scenario the same. Good catch by @fluoxetine
Last edited:
You guys with this “lock” stuff at 19 are kidding yourselves. I hope we do get there of course but it’s not a lock.
When you have been irrelevant at best and a laughingstock at worst for this long, you have to do better than those who regularly get there to initially break glass to prove you’re legit and not just a one year flash in the pan. If it was Ohio St or UM with our resume at 19 they probably get benefit of the doubt. Us....don’t bank on it.
When you have been irrelevant at best and a laughingstock at worst for this long, you have to do better than those who regularly get there to initially break glass to prove you’re legit and not just a one year flash in the pan. If it was Ohio St or UM with our resume at 19 they probably get benefit of the doubt. Us....don’t bank on it.
Can't believe this thread was posted. 19 wins (which as others have pointed out is really 18) guarantees absolutely nothing.
20 wins with no B1G tournament wins would have us all sweating on Selection Sunday. 20 wins plus one B1G tourney win gets us in the NCAAs. 21 wins gets us in regardless of what happens in Indy.
Reminder: Kevin Bannon's 1998-99 team was 18-8 with 4 regular season games to play and wound up missing the NCAAs.
20 wins with no B1G tournament wins would have us all sweating on Selection Sunday. 20 wins plus one B1G tourney win gets us in the NCAAs. 21 wins gets us in regardless of what happens in Indy.
Reminder: Kevin Bannon's 1998-99 team was 18-8 with 4 regular season games to play and wound up missing the NCAAs.
Last edited:
here is the deal....no one wants to be sweating it out Selection Sunday, we need as many wins as we can and a road win to put ourselves in the best position.
Does anyone hear want to be sitting in front of the television with RU at 19-12 or 18-13 (excluding Caldwell win) and a 1-12 road mark. I know I do not.
Does anyone hear want to be sitting in front of the television with RU at 19-12 or 18-13 (excluding Caldwell win) and a 1-12 road mark. I know I do not.
You said 19-11 excluding Caldwell. 19-12 counting Caldwell. The change from 11 to 12 is in the loss column. That isn't correct. We won the Caldwell.game. The win column would be the number to change if you're counting or excluding the Caldwell game not the loss column.
You’re misunderstanding what I was trying to say.
People in this thread are treating the Caldwell game differently and what 19 wins really means.
My point was that 19-11 if you exclude Caldwell would be enough (4 more BIG wins). 19-12 if you include Caldwell (3 more BIG wins) may not be enough and certainly isn’t a “lock”.
This is wrong.
You need to check the "Use Dynamic Rank" (or something to that effect) to get proper projections. Otherwise it still uses our current Bart ranking of #13 as an input which is why we still get in.