Its on the team sheet. Its important. Shall i dig up actual quotes from the selection committee
Take a cue from baseball
- Thread starter RU72
- Start date
I do in fact think there is basically a linear relationship between how good an opponent is and our scoring margin against them. It would be relatively absurd to think otherwise. Of course there is a ton of noise which can lead to the relationship breaking down in specific seasons (i.e. last year) but in general it will hold.
The NET is on the team sheet and supposedly important and yet my (to be clear just some rando on a message board) computer rankings had a better correlation with seeding than the NET did. By a lot.
Seeding isnt selection
Rutgers was a NET outlier..there will always be one or 2 but hardly anyway to count on it
Last edited:
I don’t see that correlation for RAC games against midmajors.
Even when the final scoring margin supports the trend, I bet the advanced stats don’t really follow it (ie. the margin differential itself is really about substitution patterns in garbage time). Sacred Heart actually gave us a MUCH better game than Hofstra. I remember watching both and thinking that.
The prior year was SFA. Bryant and Drexel weren’t better than them - tougher games for us. I should add, we rarely beat teams by 30+ Regardless. Just not Pike’s style to run up scores or leave starters in.
You answered my question with my own answer.....there is no isolation of OOC schedule as a factor.....it is OVERALL SOS.....
Did you read the article? Non-conference SOS gets its own dedicated bullet point…
From the other link
The whole deal took a step in reverse, however, when current committee chairman Bruce Rasmussen, the athletic director at Creighton, declared in a teleconference with basketball writers, "We do look at nonconference strength of schedule, it is one of the factors we look at — one of many."
The whole deal took a step in reverse, however, when current committee chairman Bruce Rasmussen, the athletic director at Creighton, declared in a teleconference with basketball writers, "We do look at nonconference strength of schedule, it is one of the factors we look at — one of many."
That is literally the definition of what worse teams are. They are the teams that other teams have better scoring margins against. Unless there is some magical property of Rutgers that does not exist for all the other teams we will also beat worse teams by more, on average.
When you get down to the level of like Maine does the linear part of the correlation start to flatten out? Probably. Obviously there is a limit to the number of points we would have the time or inclination to score even if were playing a middle school team. But I'm not sure that really applies here given that we only beat Maine by 15 and had to leave starters in there late into the game because we were worried about literally losing lol.
I stand by my statement that the data over the past few seasons doesn’t support:
a) elevated risk of losing at the RAC to 150-250 level teams vs. 300+
b) a materially higher probability of blowing out the 300 level teams
Maybe it’s a 3 year anamaly - or maybe we have a tendency to play down to competition.
We have only lost one game in that span to a team we were favored (in Bart) by more than 10 (Lafayette). We only lost one additional game (so 2 total) where we were favored by more than 5 (St Bonaventure in 2019-2020).
The second game wasn’t at home. Bart’s quant model doesn’t adequately capture the advantage of our home court.
We have only lost one game in that span to a team we were favored (in Bart) by more than 10 (Lafayette). We only lost one additional game (so 2 total) where we were favored by more than 5 (St Bonaventure in 2019-2020).
There were plenty of close calls though and NET 300+ wasn’t a safe harbor from the scares. Nor have we more easily blown out the 300 teams.
Last edited:
It's an article....it
You're going to take an article from Jerry Palm, not the NCAA committee website......Jerry Palm is by far the absolute scum of the earth and least credible person to discuss NCAA resume. The article is a content-generation item by someone who is invested and only relevant by discussing items that he has no impact in deciding.
I can also create a blog too......Palm actually wrote in the same article (which again has no relevance and should be immediately disqualified as a talking point) that margin of victory and NET are not important. Yet we discussed for 3 months that seeding and everything was based on margin or victory are the most discussed item. Because those items account for the efficiency of the teams performing, which accounts for everything, offense, offensive rebounds, defense, defensive rebounds, steals, turnovers, 3PT, FT% etc.
Please don't quote anything by Jerry Palm.....LMAO
There’s no evidence of that. If you are now going to cherry pick even further i.e. I’m only talking about home games, I’m only talking about non conference games, I’m only talking about games on weekday nights, etc then you are just veering into fantasy land. The data does not suggest that we are significantly underperforming in games where we are favored by a lot.
@PSAL_Hoops
Here is the chart for home only:
Here is the regression output:
There is some support for you here: especially support for Bart undervaluing us at home. The intercept is significantly different from zero.
The slope is a mixed bag. It is significantly less than one. It is also significantly more than zero. So we are still beating worse teams by more, on average, but perhaps not as much more as we should be.
Here is the chart for home only:
Here is the regression output:
| SUMMARY OUTPUT | ||||||||
Regression Statistics | ||||||||
| Multiple R | 0.404128102 | |||||||
| R Square | 0.163319523 | |||||||
| Adjusted R Square | 0.145517811 | |||||||
| Standard Error | 11.11316638 | |||||||
| Observations | 49 | |||||||
| ANOVA | ||||||||
| df | SS | MS | F | Significance F | ||||
| Regression | 1 | 1133.057522 | 1133.057522 | 9.174371572 | 0.003979032 | |||
| Residual | 47 | 5804.615947 | 123.502467 | |||||
| Total | 48 | 6937.673469 | ||||||
| Coefficients | Standard Error | t Stat | P-value | Lower 95% | Upper 95% | Lower 95.0% | Upper 95.0% | |
| Intercept | 6.164646422 | 2.014026909 | 3.060856036 | 0.003642177 | 2.112946893 | 10.21634595 | 2.112946893 | 10.21634595 |
| X Variable 1 | 0.549379705 | 0.181377933 | 3.02892251 | 0.003979032 | 0.184494368 | 0.914265042 | 0.184494368 | 0.914265042 |
There is some support for you here: especially support for Bart undervaluing us at home. The intercept is significantly different from zero.
The slope is a mixed bag. It is significantly less than one. It is also significantly more than zero. So we are still beating worse teams by more, on average, but perhaps not as much more as we should be.
@PSAL_Hoops
Here is the chart for home only:
Here is the regression output:
SUMMARY OUTPUT Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression Residual Total Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept X Variable 1
There is some support for you here: especially support for Bart undervaluing us at home. The intercept is significantly different from zero.
The slope is a mixed bag. It is significantly less than one. It is also significantly more than zero. So we are still beating worse teams by more, on average, but perhaps not as much more as we should be.
Thanks - I was curious about this analysis but wasn’t sure how to pull it together.. It shows what I thought it would for a pure MOV based regression.
But besides MOV being inherently flawed to begin with, we happen to know for sure (based on familiarity with the data set). Every 2021-22 OOC opponent except CC gave us a better game than Hofstra did 2020-21 despite what the final scoreboard says due to the way we managed garbage time (it’s a completely different mentality when you finally break a game open late - NJIT, Merrimack, Maine, etc.)
The other problem is sample size. We simply haven’t played that many 150-299 types at the RAC so Bryant and Drexel (2019-20) are probably carrying more relative weight for that subset of the population (and they weren’t particularly strong 200-300 types either). To me, the fact that we blew out UMass and Lafayette (19-12 that year) at the RAC that same year debunks the notion that Drexel and Bryant played us tougher because of their NETs. I think we just didn’t play well those days.
If we beat Shoe and Princeton (the games we should have won) maybe it’s a different outcome.
I think winning at least one of the series against Maryland, Michigan or Iowa would have helped more but you are right that those were bad losses.
Oh the Creighton AD who chaired the committee wasnt good enough for you
I can find others
That you are dying on a hill that Non conference SOS doesn't matter to a teams resume and the selection committee really isnt make you look credible
Last edited:
You are using a subset of OVERALL SOS, as if it's not relevant. Just stop the madness. Just say you want RU to play more interesting or name-brand opponents, instead of twisting into some narrative that doesn't exist.
The formula is clear and doesn't change....Quality wins and how you play against all opponents, exceeds all other items, instead of picking apart the 8th or 9th most important item that doesn't exist.
RU doesn't have the worst overall schedule or wasn't the only school who lacked quality wins that didn't make the NCAAs.
Rutgers plays one of the worst ooc schedules of the power 6. They arent alone. There are a handful of others. Yet Rutgers is consistently among the worst. Rutgers is the only big 10 school besides Indiana not in a tourney although i believe they play Kansas and Arizona
When you dont have non conference opportunities it means you better hope your conference is real good that year..ask Nebraska several years back
When you dont have non conference opportunities it means you better hope your conference is real good that year..ask Nebraska several years back
I love how people turn to “win the games you’re supposed to” as if you have 100% probability of winning the game.
You schedule tough so that when you INEVITABLY, because you know, math, stumble, you still get in when you’re a good team because you check all the metrics boxes.
It’s a no brainer and whoever chooses not to schedule the right way is willingly hurting their program.
You schedule tough so that when you INEVITABLY, because you know, math, stumble, you still get in when you’re a good team because you check all the metrics boxes.
It’s a no brainer and whoever chooses not to schedule the right way is willingly hurting their program.
It's a great call. Not on par with Ash will get us Trashed but any time a poster goes out with a solid argument and is proven right he deserves credit
Yes but It was a combination of things. Playing 4 whole games (1-3) out of 58 vs Quad 1 really hurt. Going 8-8 vs Quad 2 and 3-7 vs the top teams in what was considered a weaker conf also contributed to not getting in.
9-11 vs the Top 100 wasn't going to get you in.
This nonsense on OOC was already debunked on the Round Table....RU had 1 quality wins (Q1), vs others that had 3 or even 7 Q1 Wins that were on the bubble.
The committee chair person also clearly stated in an ESPN article that "conference series results", were the deciding factor for the committee.....RU went 0-3 in 3 series against the competition that mattered from the B1G (Iowa, Michigan and Maryland).
Linked article here for those vs some random sports writer.
The last four teams picked for regionals were Florida State, Grand Canyon, Liberty and Mississippi. The first four out were NC State, Old Dominion, Rutgers and Wofford.
"Selection committee chairman and Army athletic director Mike Buddie said Ole Miss got the nod over NC State because it performed a bit stronger in regular-season conference series."
It blows when so many so called fans really are nothing more than saintimonious critics/ complainers that get their rocks off by attacking RU . Constructive criticism ,NOPE , just guys who think they're showing how smart they are by telling us how f'ed up RU is. Who needs support like that from pseudo " experts".
Huh? I don’t follow much baseball. I think what your saying is that we didn’t get in because we had less quality wins than teams that made it. By quick glance - it looks like Maryland was literally the only opponent we played that was At Large caliber (3 games out of 60). We went 1-3 with all of the games being played at home. So part of the reason we didn’t have quality wins was because we didn’t play anyone - you have no control over how good your conference turns out to be, but how can you say not playing any good teams OOC was not a contributing factor to getting left out. Clearly we didn’t give ourselves enough opportunities to collect quality wins.
All this complaining about Baseball/Basketball schedules is misguided and just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The problem isn't Rutgers OOC scheduling. It's the NCAA Tournament set-up.
Both Basketball and Baseball barely made/barely missed a 64 team tournament when both teams were clearly Top 50(?) teams in the country.
Think about that.
If Rutgers Baseball is clearly a Top 64 team, then why is there even a question about them making the tournament. Why should Rutgers lack of "quality wins" even matter?
Michigan literally needed 1 win (BIG Ten Final) to make the NCAA tournament.
The entire rest of their season didn't matter. If they lose that game then they don't make the tournament.
The problem isn't Rutgers OOC scheduling. It's the NCAA Tournament set-up.
Both Basketball and Baseball barely made/barely missed a 64 team tournament when both teams were clearly Top 50(?) teams in the country.
Think about that.
If Rutgers Baseball is clearly a Top 64 team, then why is there even a question about them making the tournament. Why should Rutgers lack of "quality wins" even matter?
Michigan literally needed 1 win (BIG Ten Final) to make the NCAA tournament.
The entire rest of their season didn't matter. If they lose that game then they don't make the tournament.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. When we blame OOC and lack of quality wins, we’re taking the autobid system as a given. You can’t blame something that you have no control over. That’s how it works.
Obviously, it's due to auto bid conferences. Are you suggesting no more auto bids?
The problem seems to be that the Big Ten was a garbage baseball conference. Which sort of makes it difficult to compare to basketball.