NET

[Corycord1]

Browsing through the NET and it makes less and less sense the more I look into it. I’m not claiming that Rutgers should be higher than these teams but to be 70+ spots lower just doesn’t make sense. BTW the three teams I mentioned are all projected bubble teams at the moment.
#38 Washington St
Record:12-7
Road: 3-1
Quad 1: 0-2
Quad 2: 1-2
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 5-1
#39 Chattanooga
Record: 16-4
Road: 9-3
Quad 1: 1-2
Quad 2: 2-0
Quad 3: 6-0
Quad 4: 7-2
#40 Florida
Record: 13-8
Road: 1-4
Quad 1: 1-5
Quad 2: 3-2
Quad 3: 3-0
Quad 4: 6-1
#113 Rutgers
Record 12-8
Road: 2-6
Quad 1: 2-2
Quad 2: 3-3
Quad 3: 1-2
Quad 4: 6-1

RU FL Chatt WSU
Q1/2 Q1/2 Q1/2 Q1/2
5-5 4-7 3-2 1-4
Q3/4 Q3/4 Q3/4 Q3/4
7-3 9-1 13-2 11-3

Tell me how the net makes any sense.

 

[bac2therac]

what is keeping WSU high are their margin of victory in some of their non conference wins and that they are 3-1 on the road, also their 51-29 win at ASU probably did wonders for their rating.

Are they a realistic bubble team...well...no 11 of their 12 wins are to Q3 and 4, its way too early, they have 12 more conference games to go. Most conference are just reaching the halfway point

they are likely an outlier for now much like Colgate was last season

 

[mikeyoc]

I'm thinking the idea that any of these 3 teams could come to the RAC (sorry,
Jersey Mikes) and beat us is questionable at best. And the idea that a bunch of teams
that are ahead of us in the NET rankings could be 6-4 to this point in the BTEN
is laughable

 

[hinson32]

I'm thinking the idea that any of these 3 teams could come to the RAC (sorry,
Jersey Mikes) and beat us is questionable at best. And the idea that a bunch of teams
that are ahead of us in the NET rankings could be 6-4 to this point in the BTEN
is laughable

But yet, all these teams would beat UMass and Lafayette.

 

[fluoxetine]

I don’t know anything about these teams but I assume from the question that they are ranked highly in Kenpom as well.

 

[mikeyoc]

But yet, all these teams would beat UMass and Lafayette.

Point taken. But in the crazy world of college basketball these days,
both of our opinions could be true

 

[fluoxetine]

The NET is basically

x * Kenpom + y * (Some sort of RPI-like thing)

where
x + y = 1 but the exact values are undisclosed and the exact nature of the RPI-like thing is also undisclosed

 

[bac2therac]

I'm thinking the idea that any of these 3 teams could come to the RAC (sorry,
Jersey Mikes) and beat us is questionable at best. And the idea that a bunch of teams
that are ahead of us in the NET rankings could be 6-4 to this point in the BTEN
is laughable

We just lost to Maryland and we lost to Lafayette

 

[RUBlackout]

Really mind blowing seeing this on paper. I don’t get the 70+ spot difference

 

[DHajekRC84]

Browsing through the NET and it makes less and less sense the more I look into it. I’m not claiming that Rutgers should be higher than these teams but to be 70+ spots lower just doesn’t make sense. BTW the three teams I mentioned are all projected bubble teams at the moment.
#38 Washington St
Record:12-7
Road: 3-1
Quad 1: 0-2
Quad 2: 1-2
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 5-1
#39 Chattanooga
Record: 16-4
Road: 9-3
Quad 1: 1-2
Quad 2: 2-0
Quad 3: 6-0
Quad 4: 7-2
#40 Florida
Record: 13-8
Road: 1-4
Quad 1: 1-5
Quad 2: 3-2
Quad 3: 3-0
Quad 4: 6-1
#113 Rutgers
Record 12-8
Road: 2-6
Quad 1: 2-2
Quad 2: 3-3
Quad 3: 1-2
Quad 4: 6-1

RU FL Chatt WSU
Q1/2 Q1/2 Q1/2 Q1/2
5-5 4-7 3-2 1-4
Q3/4 Q3/4 Q3/4 Q3/4
7-3 9-1 13-2 11-3

Tell me how the net makes any sense.

don't blow you're mind over this. Its like asking accountants to plan a party of the coolest most fun and talented people. There's always a formula of some sort that leads to folks at the party asking "how did so and so get invited and where is Johhny?"

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Our kenpom SOS is 101 and our record is 12-8. I dont see an arguement.

We should have 7 wins for showing up (we only have 6). 5-8 in other 13 games gives you 12-8. Problem is we went 6-1 in those 7 games.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

according to www.realtimerpi.com

Our RPI is 150 and our SOS is 193.

193 SOS is Patriot League. Imagine if I asked BAC if Boston U should go to the dance with a 19-11 record. He'd put me on ignore.

 

[bac2therac]

everyone needs to stop complaining...Rutgers lost at home to a pathetic team. Its not losing to Bucknell or Iona or Fordham......Rutgers is being enormously penalized as they should be

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

ffrom realtimerpi site

dcap said: RU is awesome 2009-2-22 6:28:43

RU has a top recruit in dane miller comin in and they got jonathan mitchell a transfer from florida who will play 2 yrs 4 ru and they still got rosario chandler pettis echenique cobourn 4 the next 2 yrs and ndiaye 4 next yr so they cane be a much improved team in a couple of yrs if patrick jackson can play well and if they can get another top recruit

 

[Colbert17!]

The NET is basically

x * Kenpom + y * (Some sort of RPI-like thing)

where
x + y = 1 but the exact values are undisclosed and the exact nature of the RPI-like thing is also undisclosed

Jeez!!!!
Having horrific Alg. I flashbacks!!!!

 

[fluoxetine]

according to www.realtimerpi.com

Our RPI is 150 and our SOS is 193.

193 SOS is Patriot League. Imagine if I asked BAC if Boston U should go to the dance with a 19-11 record. He'd put me on ignore.

To be fair the RPI SOS is ********. But the Kenpom one is probably fairly accurate.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

everyone needs to stop complaining...Rutgers lost at home to a pathetic team. Its not losing to Bucknell or Iona or Fordham......Rutgers is being enormously penalized as they should be

Where I disagree is one game should not have such an impact.

In regression you can ignore or underweight highly leveraged observations that may but truest the real phenomenon.

No single loss should with that heavily.

Recency ought to be prioritized.

These algorithms are very suspect

 

[Corycord1]

everyone needs to stop complaining...Rutgers lost at home to a pathetic team. Its not losing to Bucknell or Iona or Fordham......Rutgers is being enormously penalized as they should be

Yes they did lose a horrific game. At the end of the day it’s a Q4 loss. Every team I mentioned has at least 1. We have also done much better in Q1/2 games then the teams I mentioned. I’m not saying we should be 40 in the net, but there is no way we should be 70+ spots lower than these teams.

 

[bac2therac]

Where I disagree is one game should not have such an impact.

In regression you can ignore or underweight highly leveraged observations that may but truest the real phenomenon.

No single loss should with that heavily.

Recency ought to be prioritized.

These algorithms are very suspect

Body of work

Its a horrific loss AT HOME..with a horrid non conference strength of schedule

I dont think RU cracks the top 80 in any ranking system..ill check on those numbers

 

[bac2therac]

Yes they did lose a horrific game. At the end of the day it’s a Q4 loss. Every team I mentioned has at least 1. We have also done much better in Q1/2 games then the teams I mentioned. I’m not saying we should be 40 in the net, but there is no way we should be 70+ spots lower than these teams.

Theirs arent nearly as bad as Rutgers loss

 

[Corycord1]

Theirs arent nearly as bad as Rutgers loss

And their best wins aren’t nearly as good as ours. Does beating the #6 team in the NET mean nothing? Does it not at least cancel out a horrible loss? Again, looking through these teams resumes it doesn’t make much sense why they’d be 70 spots better.

 

[RUtrumpet92_rivals498139]

Washington State is unusual. What is their best win? Only one win in Q2, none in Q1. I'm not saying we deserve to be higher than they do, but the difference is stark. Not all Q4 losses are counted the same, apparently.

 

[kcg88]

Where I disagree is one game should not have such an impact.

In regression you can ignore or underweight highly leveraged observations that may but truest the real phenomenon.

No single loss should with that heavily.

Recency ought to be prioritized.

These algorithms are very suspect

It's not just one game. Efficiency margin is part of the formula and we beat Lehigh by 3 (Maryland beat them by 21), Maine by 16 (Virginia Tech beat them by 35), Merrimack by 13 (Indiana beat them by 32). We lost to Illinois by 35, their next biggest Big Ten margin of victory is 23.

Wins and losses ultimately matter: if we'd beaten Lafayette and Massachusetts even by a point we'd be 14-6 (6-4) and in the tournament picture. But the NET rankings take all the other stuff into account.

 

[bac2therac]

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ts-new-college-basketball-ranking-replace-rpi

The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee announced that beginning with the 2020-21 season, the NCAA Evaluation Tool will be changed to increase accuracy and simplify it by reducing a five-component metric to just two. The remaining factors include the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, as well as an adjusted net efficiency rating.

The adjusted efficiency is a team’s net efficiency, adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played. For example, a given efficiency value (net points per 100 possessions) against stronger opposition rates higher than the same efficiency against lesser opponents and having a certain efficiency on the road rates higher than the same efficiency at home.

No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.

In addition, the overall and non-conference strength of schedule has been modernized to reflect a truer measure for how hard it is to defeat opponents. The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team's schedule for how hard it would be for an NCAA tournament-caliber team to win. It considers opponent strength and site of each game, assigning each game a difficulty score. Aggregating these across all games results in an overall expected win percentage versus a team's schedule, which can be ranked to get a better measure of the strength of schedule

 

[bac2therac]

It's not just one game. Efficiency margin is part of the formula and we beat Lehigh by 3 (Maryland beat them by 21), Maine by 16 (Virginia Tech beat them by 35), Merrimack by 13 (Indiana beat them by 32). We lost to Illinois by 35, their next biggest Big Ten margin of victory is 23.

Wins and losses ultimately matter: if we'd beaten Lafayette and Massachusetts even by a point we'd be 14-6 (6-4) and in the tournament picture. But the NET rankings take all the other stuff into account.

bingo, this is as good and concise of an explanation that people need to read. I would imagine that RU would still lag somewhat even had they beat Lafayette and UMass but we would probably be at least 40 spots higher. Our lag is because of our efficiency and also poor SOS in addition to losing to Lafayette

Note Iowa lost to Penn State yesterday but only dropped from 23 to 24 and they only have one real quality win over Indiana but the Utah State neutral is solid. Poor OOC SOS and 7 Q4, wins, however they won those games by alot, margin of victory isnt part of the NET anymore but its efficiency that comes into play.

 

[bac2therac]

How Are NET Rankings Calculated?​

The NCAA does not publicly share the exact formula it uses to calculate NET rankings. In fact, there is almost no part of the NET that can be calculated or reverse engineered. The proprietary algorithm is a tightly kept secret, but here’s what we do know: the NET has two main components – adjusted net efficiency and the team value index.

The NCAA dropped three other components of the original NET formula before the 2020-2021 college basketball season. The new NET algorithm no longer uses winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin. The NCAA confirmed it does not anticipate any further adjustments in the formula for several years.

Let’s explore the remaining factors in as much detail as possible with the limited information provided.

Adjusted Net Efficiency​

In basketball, net efficiency is a team’s offensive efficiency (points per possession) minus its defensive efficiency (opponent points per possession). Here’s the basic formula:

To find adjusted net efficiency, the NCAA tweaks the above calculation to account for strength of opponent and game location – home, away, or neutral– across all games played.

Exactly how the algorithm calculates this adjustment is somewhat of a mystery. The important thing to remember is that a given net efficiency value – say, 8.2 points per 100 possessions – rates higher against stronger competition than the same efficiency against weaker opponents. Equally, having a certain efficiency when playing on the road rates higher than accomplishing that same efficiency at home.

Adjusted net efficiency is now the most heavily weighted part of the NET formula, so running up the score can have a significant effect on NET rankings.

Team Value Index​

The Team Value Index (TVI) is the other “results-oriented” element of the NET. It’s designed to reward teams for beating other good teams.

The Team Value Index only considers games against Division I opponents and is based on results. The algorithm factors in the opponent, location, and winner to produce a TVI score. Again, little information is shared about how TVI is actually calculated.

Interestingly, strength of schedule is in some way part of both adjusted net efficiency and the Team Value Index, but its exact impact on each component is – you guessed it – a secret

 

[mikeyoc]

bingo, this is as good and concise of an explanation that people need to read. I would imagine that RU would still lag somewhat even had they beat Lafayette and UMass but we would probably be at least 40 spots higher. Our lag is because of our efficiency and also poor SOS in addition to losing to Lafayette

Note Iowa lost to Penn State yesterday but only dropped from 23 to 24 and they only have one real quality win over Indiana but the Utah State neutral is solid. Poor OOC SOS and 7 Q4, wins, however they won those games by alot, margin of victory isnt part of the NET anymore but its efficiency that comes into play.

Iowa being at 24 and RU being this many spots behind them is ABSURD

 

[bac2therac]

So Rutgers rates slightly better but still poorly in all the other computer rating systems which appears on the team sheet. That is an indication that the NET really is not all that far off in its placement of Rutgers


Rutgers

NET: 113
KPR: 114
SOR: 84
BPI: 97
POM: 103
SAG: 83

Florida

NET: 42
KPI: 58
SOR: 66
BPI: 29
POM: 42
SAG: 33

Washington State

NET: 37
KPR: 77
SOR: 139
BPI: 49
POM: 35
SAG: 47

 

[Scarlet Blind_rivals]

#37 Washington St 12-7 is the kicker this year, knew there was something off or different, someone figured out something because of how high 2020-21 Colgate finished on how to schedule and win this year. Edit *A portion* of Bart Torvik's projected result VS actual results, T-Rank, is a part of the calculations of NET new adj efficiency ratings, Wash St #21 highest in any of theIr computer ratings.

Q1 0-1 Q2 1-3 Q3 6-2 Q4 5-1, OOC SOS 335rd out of 358
Home 9-5 Road 3-1 Neutral 0-1

Q1 loss H 26 USC 61-63
Q2 loss H 31 Boise St 52-58
Q2 loss @ 93 Colorado 78-83
Q2 loss N 80 South Dakota St 74-77
**Q2 win @ 130 Utah(8-14) 77-61** by 17
Q3 loss H 89 Stanford 57-62
Q3 loss H 81 New Mexico St 61-64
**Q4 loss H 216 Eastern Washington 71-76**
29 points, 7 losses, 4.1 pts per loss

259 Alcorn St(7-14) by 18, *119 Seattle(14-4) by 18*, 195 UCSB(6-8) by 5, @ 323 Idaho(3-16) by 48, 180 Winthrop(10-8) by 6, @ 152 Arizona St(6-12) by 22, *122 Weber St(15-5) by 31*, 192 N. Colorado(8-9) by 26, 128 California(9-12) by 8, 130 Utah(8-14) by 17, *H 93 Colorado(13-8) by 27*. 243 points in 12 wins, 20.25 per win. 8 out of 12 vs under 500 teams.

This is what the committee wants back, pound the low majors or under 0.500 teams, home and road, and play close in your losses, home or road, and you're in??? I thought we got of the RPI for that very reason. Throw sportsmanship out the window. 3 wins on the road vs 3-16, 6-12 and 8-14 by a combined 87 points, 29 per, to score brownie points in 2021-22's NET. I know it won't hold up but it is concerning in the future

 

[bac2therac]

Iowa being at 24 and RU being this many spots behind them is ABSURD

Rutgers

NET: 113
KPR: 114
SOR: 84
BPI: 97
POM: 103
SAG: 83

SOS: 85
OOC SOS: 307



Iowa

NET: 24
KPR: 49
SOR: 49
BPI: 28
POM: 23
SAG: 21

SOS: 36
OOC SOS: 260

all of Iowa's losses are clean, no loss to anyone outside Q2. Their worst loss was a 2 point loss at Rutgers. Rutgers has 2 Q3 losses and a home Q4 loss

 

[bac2therac]

#37 Washington St 12-7 is the kicker this year, knew there was something off or different, someone figured out something because of how high 2020-21 Colgate finished on how to schedule and win this year. Bart Torvik's projected result VS actual results, T-Rank, is a part of the calculations of NET this year, Wash St #21 highest in any of the calculations.

Q1 0-1 Q2 1-3 Q3 6-2 Q4 5-1, OOC SOS 335rd out of 358
Home 9-5 Road 3-1 Neutral 0-1

Q1 loss H 26 USC 61-63
Q2 loss H 31 Boise St 52-58
Q2 loss @ 93 Colorado 78-83
Q2 loss N 80 South Dakota St 74-77
**Q2 win @ 130 Utah(8-14) 77-61** by 17
Q3 loss H 89 Stanford 57-62
Q3 loss H 81 New Mexico St 61-64
**Q4 loss H 216 Eastern Washington 71-76**
29 points, 7 losses, 4.1 pts per loss

259 Alcorn St(7-14) by 18, *119 Seattle(14-4) by 18*, 195 UCSB(6-8) by 5, @ 323 Idaho(3-16) by 48, 180 Winthrop(10-8) by 6, @ 152 Arizona St(6-12) by 22, *122 Weber St(15-5) by 31*, 192 N. Colorado(8-9) by 26, 128 California(9-12) by 8, 130 Utah(8-14) by 17, *H 93 Colorado(13-8) by 27*. 243 points in 12 wins, 20.25 per win. 8 out of 12 vs under 500 teams.

This is what the committee wants back, pound the low majors or under 0.500 teams, home and road, and play close in your losses, home or road, and you're in??? I thought we got of the RPI for that very reason. Throw sportsmanship out the window. 3 wins on the road vs 3-16, 6-12 and 8-14 by a combined 87 points, 29 per, to score brownie points in 2021-22's NET.

I have read nothing that says they use Torvik, where are you getting this from

Washington State may be an outlier somewhat but their rankings in the other ratings are in range on 4 of the 6. Remember they have 12 games to play. People need to keep in mind its not two weeks before Selection Sunday. Some teams have 10-12 games left to play, its ALOT

Rutgers has 8 or 9 Q1 games to go, its sos and ranking has the potential to rise much like MSU's did after laggging. The overall NET will not matter if the wins start coming in.

 

[bac2therac]

And their best wins aren’t nearly as good as ours. Does beating the #6 team in the NET mean nothing? Does it not at least cancel out a horrible loss? Again, looking through these teams resumes it doesn’t make much sense why they’d be 70 spots better.

the chasm between 113 and 322 is far far far greater than that from 113 to 8

 

[kcg88]

#37 Washington St 12-7 is the kicker this year, knew there was something off or different, someone figured out something because of how high 2020-21 Colgate finished on how to schedule and win this year. Bart Torvik's projected result VS actual results, T-Rank, is a part of the calculations of NET this year, Wash St #21 highest in any of the calculations.

Q1 0-1 Q2 1-3 Q3 6-2 Q4 5-1, OOC SOS 335rd out of 358
Home 9-5 Road 3-1 Neutral 0-1

Q1 loss H 26 USC 61-63
Q2 loss H 31 Boise St 52-58
Q2 loss @ 93 Colorado 78-83
Q2 loss N 80 South Dakota St 74-77
**Q2 win @ 130 Utah(8-14) 77-61** by 17
Q3 loss H 89 Stanford 57-62
Q3 loss H 81 New Mexico St 61-64
**Q4 loss H 216 Eastern Washington 71-76**
29 points, 7 losses, 4.1 pts per loss

259 Alcorn St(7-14) by 18, *119 Seattle(14-4) by 18*, 195 UCSB(6-8) by 5, @ 323 Idaho(3-16) by 48, 180 Winthrop(10-8) by 6, @ 152 Arizona St(6-12) by 22, *122 Weber St(15-5) by 31*, 192 N. Colorado(8-9) by 26, 128 California(9-12) by 8, 130 Utah(8-14) by 17, *H 93 Colorado(13-8) by 27*. 243 points in 12 wins, 20.25 per win. 8 out of 12 vs under 500 teams.

This is what the committee wants back, pound the low majors or under 0.500 teams, home and road, and play close in your losses, home or road, and you're in??? I thought we got of the RPI for that very reason. Throw sportsmanship out the window. 3 wins on the road vs 3-16, 6-12 and 8-14 by a combined 87 points, 29 per, to score brownie points in 2021-22's NET.

High Major A plays Low Major Z and wins 84-56.

High Major B plays Low Major Y and wins 76-75.

Absent any other information, the conclusion to be drawn is that High Major A is superior to High Major B.

At the very core this is what NET is doing. It measures how you play, home/away, takes into account the quality of your opponent and spits out a number. The committee exists to add the rest of the context and to use these numbers in a meaningful way.

Hence, from a NET perspective, winning 73-70 in OT over Lehigh at home is virtually as damaging as losing 53-51 to Lafayette at home. They're both horrific from a NET standpoint.

Iowa started the season with six straight games against sub-150 teams. Their average margin of victory was 31.6 points. That's the jumping-off point for why a team like Iowa is way ahead of (plus a 20 point neutral court win over a top-45 Utah State team).

 

[bac2therac]

Where I disagree is one game should not have such an impact.

In regression you can ignore or underweight highly leveraged observations that may but truest the real phenomenon.

No single loss should with that heavily.

Recency ought to be prioritized.

These algorithms are very suspect

then no single win should either, toss the outliers, Purdue and Lafayette and you are left with a barren resume, RU has only beaten Iowa and has two other 2 Q3 losses and have no OOC win of note. Throw out the Lafayette win and RU would still be on the outside of the bubble looking in right now

 

[kcg88]

By the way the reason people complain about Pikiell's schedule is because SOS is a part of the NET formula. If you play a crappy non-conference schedule then you need to beat them down like Iowa did or else it's a mark against you in the NET. I'm fairly certain the SOS element is included in part to dissuade teams from playing such crappy schedules.

Say Rutgers played TCU instead of Lafayette, played a similarly dreadful game, and lost by 30 points. That would be very very bad from a NET standpoint but then at least there wouldn't be a Q4 loss on the resume AND the overall SOS component would be higher for us. That's the bone to pick with the scheduling.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

then no single win should either, toss the outliers, Purdue and Lafayette and you are left with a barren resume, RU has only beaten Iowa and has two other 2 Q3 losses and have no OOC win of note. Throw out the Lafayette win and RU would still be on the outside of the bubble looking in right now

Not sure it is symmetrical. Anyone can lose if they don't show up. Not everyone can beat good teams.

Not saying it shouldn't count. Just should be weighted less.

I'm not arguing Rutgers is there yet. Just that that 100's is not a good descriptor of Rutgers today.

 

[bac2therac]

I always advocate for a tough schedule because you can fall back on it if the win/loss record is struggling. Many here use the argument that the Big 10 is tough enough and it does not matter. Yet we saw with Nebraska several years back and we are seeing it here this year somewhat. Big 10 strong in the top 5 but then a fall off and while Iowa is 24 in the NET, the reality is they are no NCAA lock at this point.

There are schools that have gurus who will try to figure stuff like SOS out for their programs, alot of schools especially midmajors started to figure out the rpi and scheduled accordingly and some majors did that as well. Obviously history has shown, RU does not have anyone who considers this. Its refusal to play in non conference 2-3 game tourneys is a disaster as that scheduling gives you 2 or 3 neutral site opportunities usually falling no worse than Q2.

I do not like the Umass scheduling at all because we signed a series to play on the road vs them..why? They are not good enough for wins over them to matter but yet are good enough they can beat you, the kind of program you dont want to play.

I hope RU knows whether or not they will be in the Big East challenge. I think we are due for sit out. Of course next year is going to be a drop off so the way they scheduled this year is more appropriate. For the best team ever, this scheduling by Pike was poor

 

[bac2therac]

Not sure it is symmetrical. Anyone can lose if they don't show up. Not everyone can beat good teams.

Not saying it shouldn't count. Just should be weighted less.

I'm not arguing Rutgers is there yet. Just that that 100's is not a good descriptor of Rutgers today.

but today its body of work...thus far its pretty appropriate because look at the other rating systems, they are better but not by much. Again as KCG posted, that 3 point win at home over Lehigh also plays a role

 

[kcg88]

Not sure it is symmetrical. Anyone can lose if they don't show up. Not everyone can beat good teams.

Not saying it shouldn't count. Just should be weighted less.

I'm not arguing Rutgers is there yet. Just that that 100's is not a good descriptor of Rutgers today.

It's actually harder to lose to a team as bad as Lafayette at home than it is to beat a team as good as Purdue.

Purdue has 3 losses in 21 games.

All teams rated 300th or worse have a combined two wins over high-major opponents in at least twice as many games.

Northern Illinois beat Washington, Lafayette beat Rutgers. That's the list.

Also there is a logical fallacy in saying "anyone can lose" but also "not everyone can beat good teams." Both cannot be true. What if the good team doesn't show up?

 

[Salvi's Headband]

A guy who does NIT bracketology came out with a bracket today and he said in comments that Rutgers isn't even on the NIT bubble.