Hey NET

[ColonelRutgers]

Suck it. This is not the 94th best team in country. 9-5 in Big Ten. Beaten 4 of the top 5 teams in the league and have a shot at 5th at home in 4 days.

Who gives a flying eff about efficiency stats? Shouldn’t the scoreboard be more important? One horrendous loss before Thanksgiving should not mean that much. Ralph Sampson lost to D2 Chiaminade for chrissakes.

 

[G- RUnit]

It’s a stat that has been criticized from day one. RU making a mockery of it.

 

[Barnaby&Neill]

If you want a high batting average, you need to get hits. Doesn’t mean you’re a bad ball player, the stat just judges you on the performance recorded on paper.

If we take care of business down the stretch, we’ll be in good shape. If you want to look pretty in the metric, you have to achieve what the metric evaluates. We didn’t.

 

[G- RUnit]

Or the metrics aren’t accurate. A bad loss should outweigh great wins? RU making it look ridiculously stupid. Who knew?

 

[RUPartisan]

Or the metrics aren’t accurate. A bad loss should outweigh great wins. RU making it look ridiculously stupid. Who knew?

Problem is a single bad loss seems to outweigh multiple great wins. It's really insane that they value consistent mediocrity as much as they do.

 

[Barnaby&Neill]

Or the metrics aren’t accurate. A bad loss should outweigh great wins. RU making it look ridiculously stupid. Who knew?

We knew a couple of weeks ago our bad losses in and out of conference were going to be really tough to overcome by any measure. The NET reflects that. As fans our emotions are just catching up to RU’s turnaround faster than the math. If we keep it up, not only will we be dancing, we’ll probably have a solid NET. So let’s just keep winning.

 

[Ru-baby]

Let's be clear. RU has exposed the NET as having major flaws.

Sure it can be one component. But in no way, shape or form should a bad NET number be disqualifying. We may have establsished that this year.