say hello and remind everyone that they kinda got screwed because they had NET rankings in the 30’s last year and did not get bids...
Clemson, NC State and Texas all...
- Thread starter Knight Owl
- Start date
fortunately NET ranking is not the only criteria the committee goes by. Clemson going 1-10 in Q1 games might have had something to do with their missing the tourney. Texas going a combined 8-6 in Q2 and Q3 games didn't help them. NC State had a pair of Q3 losses against only 3 Q1 wins.
Deserving teams get left out every year, obviously, but it's generally teams hovering right around that 11 seed line. If Rutgers wins one more game they are probably looking at more in the 9 seed range.
Deserving teams get left out every year, obviously, but it's generally teams hovering right around that 11 seed line. If Rutgers wins one more game they are probably looking at more in the 9 seed range.
None of those teams were ever projected to be in the field last year, why are people just unaware of how things work???
Minnesota 44 and Purdue 36 have strong NET ratings this season, but aren't going to be more than a couple of games over .500 even with a couple more wins....is anyone currently projecting either into the tournament right now...??
Minnesota 44 and Purdue 36 have strong NET ratings this season, but aren't going to be more than a couple of games over .500 even with a couple more wins....is anyone currently projecting either into the tournament right now...??
I keep telling folk.. all those predictions of 11 and 12 Big Ten teams getting in goes against the history of the selection process. The max for Big Ten has been 8. The record number was 11 for the 16-team Big East and that happened once.
The committee is made up of people associated with different regions and conferences and teams. I think the committee members that represent a conference are screwing that conference because they cannot participate in discussions about that conference's teams. Some reps are school ADs.. they cannot participate when their school is discussed or voted on. We are lucky in that this years Big Ten rep is from a school, not the conference.
But I think human nature will take over and everyone will think so many Big Ten teams means taking something away from their conference and region. I think 9 is a sure thing, 10 would be good.. but 11 or 12.. I don't see it... and OP shows that seemingly deserving teams have been left out before.. always.
The committee is made up of people associated with different regions and conferences and teams. I think the committee members that represent a conference are screwing that conference because they cannot participate in discussions about that conference's teams. Some reps are school ADs.. they cannot participate when their school is discussed or voted on. We are lucky in that this years Big Ten rep is from a school, not the conference.
But I think human nature will take over and everyone will think so many Big Ten teams means taking something away from their conference and region. I think 9 is a sure thing, 10 would be good.. but 11 or 12.. I don't see it... and OP shows that seemingly deserving teams have been left out before.. always.
Not Texas. Clemson and NC State did get screwed though I'll give you that.
10 looks like the most likely number now, but 11 is still much more likely than 9.
I do not recall seeing a single prediction that the Big Ten would ultimately get 11 or 12 teams in. I do recall people noting that they Big Ten could get 11 or 12 teams in, but that obviously required a near perfect series of events leaving a bunch of teams on those 9/10 seed lines. Too many conference losses add up to let all 12 of the potential teams actually get in.
Personally I have projected 10 teams for several months and I still think that is the most likely outcome. It'll be hard to only get 9 teams in. Teams are evaluated as a team, not as part of a conference wide evaluation. The Big Ten is propped up this season by some very good OOC results that lead to high opinions of individual teams across the conference. So then when those teams lose some games they became very valuable wins for other teams in the conference.
Did Duke and North Carolina already tell the selection committee where they want to play, and what seed they want?
I was predicting 11 for a while. I still think it's a possibility but it's looking like 10.
c'mon.. everyone has seen those projections. I am not accusing anyone here of doing it. But that was pretty much the starting point for such predictions.
There aren't enough wins to go around to get 11 or 12 in, 10 is possible but 9 is more likely. NW has Illinois, Wisc and PSU left and Nebraska has OSU, Michigan and Minnesota. Illinois and Minnesota are the 2 teams that can't afford a slip up. Illinois has 5 Q1, 3 Q2, and 1 Q3 loss already. Wisconsin maybe, but they have 7 Q1, 3 Q2, but 1 Q3 loss too.
44 Minnesota 13-13 have to win 3 out of 4(H Md, @Wisc, @Indy, *H Nebraska*) to get to 16-14 and have to win one in the B1G tourney to get to 17-15. Not getting in, 1 over .500
37 Purdue 14-14 have to win 3 straight(H Indy, @Iowa, H Rutgers), 2-1 gets 16-15, they have to win 2 B1G(2-1) to get to 18-16.
53 Indiana 18-9, 7 of 9 losses by 9 pts or more are killing their NET, 6 Q1 wins, games left (@Purdue, @Illinois, H Minnesota, H Wisc) they have to win 1(19-12) and avoid blowouts losses, 4 losses would put their NET too high at 18-13.
Illinois 17-9(1 Non-D1 win), 4 left @NW, H Indy, @OSU, H Iowa
We know what we are and what we have left. Worst case would be Purdue and Minnesota beat Indy and neither get to 2 over .500, Indiana loses 4 straight, with Illinois slip up could turn to 8 and Rutgers not get there either to 7.
44 Minnesota 13-13 have to win 3 out of 4(H Md, @Wisc, @Indy, *H Nebraska*) to get to 16-14 and have to win one in the B1G tourney to get to 17-15. Not getting in, 1 over .500
37 Purdue 14-14 have to win 3 straight(H Indy, @Iowa, H Rutgers), 2-1 gets 16-15, they have to win 2 B1G(2-1) to get to 18-16.
53 Indiana 18-9, 7 of 9 losses by 9 pts or more are killing their NET, 6 Q1 wins, games left (@Purdue, @Illinois, H Minnesota, H Wisc) they have to win 1(19-12) and avoid blowouts losses, 4 losses would put their NET too high at 18-13.
Illinois 17-9(1 Non-D1 win), 4 left @NW, H Indy, @OSU, H Iowa
We know what we are and what we have left. Worst case would be Purdue and Minnesota beat Indy and neither get to 2 over .500, Indiana loses 4 straight, with Illinois slip up could turn to 8 and Rutgers not get there either to 7.
Last edited:
11 is not far fetched at all.
Maryland, Michigan St. Michigan, Penn St., Ohio St., Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana are all getting in. That is 9 already.
Rutgers is probably getting in, that's 10.
Then are you really need is Purdue or Minnesota to get hot. If either one of them wins their next four games they should be in. I'm not predicting it but it's far from impossible.
you seem to be confusing people's guesses at the time with assessments of what would ultimately happen. Like I said, everyone noted there were 11 or 12 teams that could get in but that is different from expecting 11 or 12 teams to actually get in. I mean it COULD happen, but the results in games have to line up just right.
another one..
There were plenty of brackets and predictions that had 11 and 12 Big Ten teams IN. Many of those sites UPDATE their brackets and makes it hard to find what they had them looking like.
I don't know how anyone that claims he is making predictions a long time never stumbled across those predictions.
you keep linking "if the season ended today" type brackets which is different than projecting what the final brackets will look like
YOU are the one calling them "if the season ended today" type brackets. The sources have "experts" filling out predictions.
yes, the experts filling out a bracket as their guess if the season ended on the day they made it. They certainly aren't predicting the results of future games. The actual article you linked said "it's hard to imagine the league earning 12 bids".
what was this then?
from this thread... posted 16 days ago.. and also in that thread you have someone saying 12 is more likely than 9
In those brackets that the "experts" publish, they take guesses as to auto-bids, don't they? They are all predictions based on what they then-currently knew. They do not ever say, I have 11 or 12 Big Ten teams in but the committee will not do that. THAT is what I said then and now and I said it specifically because no one else was saying it. And when I said it I got a lot of crap from yourself and others about.. that's not how they do it, standing in conference mean nothing, blah blah blah.
When we do not get 11 or 12 everyone will say that was what they expected. And that's fine.. but so many of the national experts had 11 and 12... and if they don't want to be held to that, don't make the prediction as early as they do... but they want the clicks..
Last edited:
That was me, and I still think it was correct at the time.
I no longer believe that but I still think 11 is much more likely than 9.
10 > 11 > 9 > 12
They were not predicting the bracket on march 15..they were predicting on feb whatever
If purdue and minny were 16-12 theyd be projected in the field today
And i never thought 12 had a great chance to happen..thats why i said 15%. Looks like 10 is most likely now