It was because in general, the BIG was not respected this year. So this year RPI was biased against the BIG. No OOC scheduling by us would have changed that. You have to look beyond just us and even OSU. Look at MICH, Purdue, IN and even MSU. All were affected
So what does NU need next year?
- Thread starter Sec.112
- Start date
It happened twice in one year and four times in total:
2013 Illinois and Minnesota, both 8-10 and both ranked for multiple weeks, Minny as high as 8th
1994 Wisconsin 8-10
1990 Indiana 8-10
Other teams with losing records to make it:
2005 Iowa (7-9)
2001 Iowa and PSU (7-9 but Iowa won BTT)
1999 Purdue (7-9)
So you think if we had gone 12-1 against the toughest schedule in the country (instead of 337), and ended up 20-12, we still would have been left out of the nit because of the way the big 10 was "viewed"?
Wow. Interesting take.
I'm starting to think your having a little fun with this thread at everyone's expense because you can't possibly be serious.
Or we could have won a play in tournament in a weak conference and obviously finally made you happy or not.
This is the second time I posted the following comparison, but I think it's even more relevant to how this discussion has evolved.
I don't buy the B10 disrespect argument for a second. Everybody agrees the NU OOC RPI was horrible. So if the B10 was so poorly represented by the RPI, NU should have a significantly lower number of 1-50/1-100 RPI games, right? They're not even close. They had a very similar number of top-50 and top-100 games to the last four in and the first four out. NU had eight top-50 games.
It's pretty hard to ignore NU was 2-11 against their top-100 opponents as well as the goose egg against top 25 teams - especially when you see that every other team listed below had one top-25 win except Monmouth. Compare that to almost any of these resumes as well as the seven wins of Long Beach St., the last NIT at-large bid. Monmouth is the only resume that comes close to the idea that NU and the B10 were screwed.
And while we're on the topic of the eight B10 wins, let's look at the RPIs of the six teams NU beat - 43, 143, 162, 254 and 294. If you raised Rutgers' and Minnesota's RPIs by 100 points, they would still be crappy. You'd have to grade the B10 RPI on a hell of a curve of disrespect to bring them to respectable.
NU
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 0-6
#26-50 ... 1-1
# 51-100 ...1-4
#101-200 ...7-1
#201+ ... 11-0
KenPom SOS rank ...103
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 345
Michigan (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 3-7
#26-50 ... 1-4
# 51-100 ...0-1
#101-200 ...8-0
#201+ ... 9-0
KenPom SOS rank ...46
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 235
Vanderbilt (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 2-6
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...5-3
#101-200 ...8-3
#201+ ... 4-0
KenPom SOS rank ...27
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 45
Wichita St (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-1
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...3-5
#101-200 ...8-1
#201+ ... 11-0
KenPom SOS rank ... 122
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 26
Tulsa (last team in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-1
#26-50 ... 3-4
# 51-100 ...4-3
#101-200 ...2-3
#201+ ... 10-0
KenPom SOS rank ...72
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 160
Monmouth (one of first four out)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 0-1
#26-50 ... 1-0
# 51-100 ...2-3
#101-200 ...7-2
#201+ ... 8-1
KenPom SOS rank ... 168
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 20
St. Bonaventure (one of first four out)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 3-1
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...4-3
#101-200 ...7-2
#201+ ... 8-1
KenPom SOS rank ... 125
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 286
Long Beach St (maybe the last NIT at-large bid)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-3
#26-50 ... 0-2
# 51-100 ...6-3
#101-200 ...2-4
#201+ ... 9-2
KenPom SOS rank ...59
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ...
I don't buy the B10 disrespect argument for a second. Everybody agrees the NU OOC RPI was horrible. So if the B10 was so poorly represented by the RPI, NU should have a significantly lower number of 1-50/1-100 RPI games, right? They're not even close. They had a very similar number of top-50 and top-100 games to the last four in and the first four out. NU had eight top-50 games.
It's pretty hard to ignore NU was 2-11 against their top-100 opponents as well as the goose egg against top 25 teams - especially when you see that every other team listed below had one top-25 win except Monmouth. Compare that to almost any of these resumes as well as the seven wins of Long Beach St., the last NIT at-large bid. Monmouth is the only resume that comes close to the idea that NU and the B10 were screwed.
And while we're on the topic of the eight B10 wins, let's look at the RPIs of the six teams NU beat - 43, 143, 162, 254 and 294. If you raised Rutgers' and Minnesota's RPIs by 100 points, they would still be crappy. You'd have to grade the B10 RPI on a hell of a curve of disrespect to bring them to respectable.
NU
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 0-6
#26-50 ... 1-1
# 51-100 ...1-4
#101-200 ...7-1
#201+ ... 11-0
KenPom SOS rank ...103
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 345
Michigan (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 3-7
#26-50 ... 1-4
# 51-100 ...0-1
#101-200 ...8-0
#201+ ... 9-0
KenPom SOS rank ...46
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 235
Vanderbilt (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 2-6
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...5-3
#101-200 ...8-3
#201+ ... 4-0
KenPom SOS rank ...27
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 45
Wichita St (one of the last several in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-1
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...3-5
#101-200 ...8-1
#201+ ... 11-0
KenPom SOS rank ... 122
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 26
Tulsa (last team in)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-1
#26-50 ... 3-4
# 51-100 ...4-3
#101-200 ...2-3
#201+ ... 10-0
KenPom SOS rank ...72
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 160
Monmouth (one of first four out)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 0-1
#26-50 ... 1-0
# 51-100 ...2-3
#101-200 ...7-2
#201+ ... 8-1
KenPom SOS rank ... 168
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 20
St. Bonaventure (one of first four out)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 3-1
#26-50 ... 0-1
# 51-100 ...4-3
#101-200 ...7-2
#201+ ... 8-1
KenPom SOS rank ... 125
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ... 286
Long Beach St (maybe the last NIT at-large bid)
vs RPI rank
#1-25 ... 1-3
#26-50 ... 0-2
# 51-100 ...6-3
#101-200 ...2-4
#201+ ... 9-2
KenPom SOS rank ...59
KenPom NonConf SOS rank ...
Thanks for the info. That said, 90 and 94 were sort of a different era. Was it before the BTT? It was 18 games out of a smaller schedule. You missed two games with at most two teams depending on when PSU joined.
The later years had BTT and only a 16 game BT schedule. And you have to know how many BTT games were won as well. In 2013, IL won a BTT game for example and got the 9th win
I never argued for NCAA but for the NIT. And if you look at LBS for example, they have bad losses which NU did not have. Just saying that in any normal year, OSU would have been in the NCAA, Michigan would not have needed heroics in the BTT to get in and would not have been in a play in game and NU would have been in the NIT.
I don't know what you call "normal". The Big 10 has never in history had more than 7 teams in the NCAA Tournament. Never. Ever.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/big-ten/
1) So Long Beach State has losses to Cal Poly (233), UC Riverside (266) and two losses to Oklahoma State (169). They also have the seven top-100 wins and an RPI 30 points higher than NU. What part of NU'S SPECIFIC RESUME tops those two LBSU positives?
2) And before we go down the road that the B10 dragged NU down, Long Beach St. plays in a league with five teams who have an RPI 230 or higher. Are we going to alter their rating also because their league is dragging down their RPI? They proved they can beat top-100s more than NU, right?
3) Let's also not forget this is the final NIT at-large bid (I think) we're talking about. If I'm in a generous mood, NU MIGHT have an argument, but it's nowhere close to a slam dunk, even against the lowest of the NIT invites.
"And prior to last year, the BIG never had a history of more than 12 teams in conference. Ever. And with that they occasionally had 7 teams in the NCAA even when there were only 11 teams in conference. Oh and last year, the 7th team to be chosen was a 9-9 team. THIS year we are talking about an 11-7 team not getting in and a 10-8 team that only got in by winning two games in the BTT. With 14 teams, 7 teams in the NCAA will no longer be the limit, just like it wasn't with the Big East when they had more teams.
And if things had gone as normal with an 11-7 OSU team going to NCAA, and with MICH going with a 10-8 record wins (normally enough in itself) and two BTT wins, NU would have been the only choice from the BIG that warranted an invite. And I do not see the NIT going without a BIG representative.
Secondly, I look at a bad losses as negating a good wins and LBS had a number of them that NU just did not have. As far as their schedule, they played SH, HI and BYU at the very beginning of the year and I look at how teams play down the stretch as more important.
It's incredibly obvious that the committee does not consider bad losses the same as good wins. But it's becoming pretty clear you're developing your own standards.
This illustrates how you're taking your own personal opinion of the situation (the "bias" against the Big Ten, how you personally value bad losses vs. good wins) and trying to generalize it to some sort of objective assessment of why we missed the NIT.
And I do not see the NIT going without a BIG representative.
Not only is the nit committee indifferent to conference affiliation, they are prohibited from considering it. This isn't the old nit, the selection process is identical to the big dance process
Not only is the nit committee indifferent to conference affiliation, they are prohibited from considering it. This isn't the old nit, the selection process is identical to the big dance process
I really thought we would be able to go to the NIT. 8-10 in the BIG got us there before, although we did beat some top teams with a few of those 8 wins when we had Shurna.
This year was ugly but an improvement. I think that Maryland OT victory would have looked nice and changed some things around. We just didn't have what it took to close games out [OSU twice, Maryland, Michigan 3 times]. Next year maybe we can win 9 or 10 BIG games but I think we have a chance for the dance in 2018.
Your argument leans heavily on how many conference wins teams have, when the committee has stated for years that the raw number of conference wins for any team is irrelevant. It's only about who you beat and where over the course of your entire season. Obviously teams in better conferences have more chances for good wins and you don't get dinged as much for losses, so that's where being in a power conference improves your chances (and your RPI).
But the committee has never done the "how many teams from x conference are we going to put in" thing nor the "we have to include/exclude x team because they won x conference games" thing. Yet these concepts continue to persist. We didn't get extra credit for 3 wins against Minnesota and Rutgers because they were league games. They didn't count any more than any other 3 games we won against awful teams.
I get your argument, but you're arguing with criteria the selection committee doesn't use.
So when was the last time that the BIG did not have a representative in the NIT?
Then why in the last few weeks before selection do they continue to show teams on the bubble with their good wins AND bad losses if they are irrelevant?
Because in power conferences the conference record is much more important. First, most teams (Not just us) in the BIG or other power conferences have weaker OOC schedules. BY contrast, weaker conference teams generally have stronger OOC schedules than in conference. Secondly, you are generally not playing teams OOC during the last half of the season and it was always suggested that recent performance carries a lot more weight than games 3 months earlier as it should be( we were 4-1 down the stretch). For example, this year, was WIS the same team at the end of the season as they were at the beginning? So yes, number of conference wins is very important. It was used to keep us out of the NCAA in the past. No 9 wins, try again next year. And again, prior to this year, the BIG had sent plenty of 0.500 teams to the dance (in fact, a 0.500 team with a winning record not going was more the exception) but there had only been one case in history (Since it went to 64 teams ) where a team with a winning BIG record had not gone dancing. And this year other than BTT heroics by MICH there would have been two That is why I have said that lack of respect of the BIG cost the whole conference including us.
If an 11-7 OSU team is out and a 10-8 Michigan team only barley gets to the dance by wining two games in the BTT including one against the #1 team just barely gets in when there has only been one case in history for a BIG team with a winning conference record not getting in prior to this year. That sure seems like a lack of respect to me..
Sorry, Hdhntr. I usually can buy what you're selling, but not this go around. There's an abundance of reasons why which have already been well stated.
Sorry but needing 9 to 10 BIG wins throughout history to get to NCAA (and only once did a 10 win team not make it) to suddenly needing 12 is an indication of lack of respect for BIG wins. Use any justification you want and it still indicates a lack of respect for BIG product.
The point is that it's a lack of respect by a mathematical formula - there isn't some shady cabal that arbitrarily decided to hate the Big Ten.
Ever heard the statement "Figures don't lie but liars figure"? That is what I am reminded of. Start with the premise that the BIG is down. Use that to downgrade the value of a victory over an opponent and suddenly none of the teams are rated highly because the teams they beat were not rated highly.
Teams in other conferences were not penalized like teams in the BIG. MSU lost no OOC games including beating Kansas but Kansas still ended up with the number one overall seed There are plenty of other examples.
Last edited:
Hdhntr1,
How are you so confused by such a simple concept?
The rpi isn't "biased against" anyone: it's a mathematical formula.
The rpi didn't start with the "premise" that the big is down; it was apparent that the big was down by looking at the rpi after a few weeks. It's one of the lowest in 15 years. The big was deservedly disrespected, and the actual wins and losses and sos is why.
You get 8th grade math, right?
Last edited:
Outside of what mystic says, what B1G victories that we got do you think didn't get the respect they deserved from the NIT committee? Was it great wins over that juggernaut Nebraska or the impressive performances over world-beating Minnesota. Compared to our NIT competition, we beat very few teams of significance.
At the end of the day, you have no argument for why we should have made the NIT other than, "Even though our profile is impressive to no one, we should have been the best B1G team available for the NIT and they would have had to take us because they usually take at least one B1G team."
That's a ridiculously loser argument.,
I am not suggesting that the BIG was the top conference but never have conference wins been shown the lack of respect that they were this year. In history of the 64 or above team NCAA, only one team with at least 10 wins in the BIG did not get in to the NCAA and never an 11 win team. Even last year a 8 win team got in but suddenly it took 12. Pretty big and historic change.
Basically RPI could not be boosted by beating teams in the BIG because the BIG was rated as being down. So for example, beating NU got you nothing even though the only OOC loss was to a final 4 team. RPI is an attempt to make things look scientific but it has built in biases that feed on themselves, Basically while in general, teams get better over the course of the season, with the BIG this year, that was taken out of the equation. Not totally for individule teams (see WIS) but for the conference as a whole
Last edited:
I'll ask again like I asked above, what B1G victories that we got do you think didn't get the respect they deserved from the NIT committee? Outside of Wisconsin, who should people be impressed that we beat in the B1G? Illinois? Nebraska? Penn State? Minnesota? Rutgers? None of those teams even had an overall winning record. I'm not talking a winning B1G record, I'm talking an OVERALL record. Those teams weren't good, so why should they be evidence that we should have been in the NIT? If they aren't, then nothing else really matters, does it?
Then why is it that prior to this year, there was only one team with a winning record in the BIG that did not make it to the dance? One in History. (AS well as most 9-9 teams).? Basically conference record was always first cut. Winning record, you are in. Losing record you are not and 0.500 record need other criteria to determine. Only a couple exceptions to this rule and only one of them with a winning BIG record. And again, every other conference has a bad team or so. Look at the Big East. They had a 1-17 (8-24 overall) St Johns and a 3-15 Depaul (9-22) Both pretty bad teams, yet it did not weigh on their teams with winning records as all made it to the dance even though they all got to play both teams twice each. And as much as you like to knock wins over NEB, they did beat MSU and WIS.
I've been on record here saying the RPI was skewed. Princeton rated in the 30s (ahead of Yale, who lost to Illinois, by the way) despite beating no one and several MAC teams were rated ahead of quite a few BIG teams and yet NONE of those MAC teams beat anyone of consequence. I think they got credit for losing to good teams on the road and for beating their fellow conference teams with inflated records due to weak schedules.
This is exactly what happened. (Well, they got credit for playing good teams on the road, but close enough.) And this is why RPI is a terrible metric, irrespective of any accusations of "bias" or whatever. But the fact remains that it's the metric most favored by the selection committee, so it's a good idea to try to game the system by taking advantage of its flaws.
Last edited:
"
"And again, every other conference has a bad team or so. Look at the Big East. They had a 1-17 (8-24 overall) St Johns and a 3-15 Depaul (9-22) Both pretty bad teams, yet it did not weigh on their teams with winning records as all made it to the dance even though they all got to play both teams twice each."
I feel silly having to type this, but here goes: YES! It did weigh on them- the same as any game weighs on any team. What is your problem?
1) You do understand that EVERY conference has the exact same conference record when the season's done, right? .500. Every team that plays a conference game wins or loses. That always seems to even out over the course of a season.
2) So, it makes zero difference if you have Nebraskas, Depauls, Minnesotas and Northwesterns to play against; it means that the other teams have combined to win all those conference games that they lost. In other words the conference nets to .500 every time. When youre conference plays a lot of weak teams and still doesn't do well (B10 this year), the numbers reflect that the conference isn't very good. All conference opponents absorb that downgrading to a degree.
3) Also irrelevant, is "who you beat" and "who you lost to". RPI doesn't account for that at all (outside the realm of it's mind-boggling simple formula). If you played the top 15, and won every game, and the bottom 15 in the country, and lost every game, your rpi would be the same as if you lost to every top 15 school, and beat every bottom 15 school.
P.S. Rpi is simple. Most people could memorize it in 5 seconds, and understand it in ten.
And at this point I'm assuming you didn't go to NU, but are you really that dumbstruck that what used to happen sometimes in the Big 10, won't necessarily always happen?
You don't think Egypt still has the strongest military like they did in 3000 bc do you?
_______________________
"And again, every other conference has a bad team or so. Look at the Big East. They had a 1-17 (8-24 overall) St Johns and a 3-15 Depaul (9-22) Both pretty bad teams, yet it did not weigh on their teams with winning records as all made it to the dance even though they all got to play both teams twice each."
I feel silly having to type this, but here goes: YES! It did weigh on them- the same as any game weighs on any team. What is your problem?
1) You do understand that EVERY conference has the exact same conference record when the season's done, right? .500. Every team that plays a conference game wins or loses. That always seems to even out over the course of a season.
2) So, it makes zero difference if you have Nebraskas, Depauls, Minnesotas and Northwesterns to play against; it means that the other teams have combined to win all those conference games that they lost. In other words the conference nets to .500 every time. When youre conference plays a lot of weak teams and still doesn't do well (B10 this year), the numbers reflect that the conference isn't very good. All conference opponents absorb that downgrading to a degree.
3) Also irrelevant, is "who you beat" and "who you lost to". RPI doesn't account for that at all (outside the realm of it's mind-boggling simple formula). If you played the top 15, and won every game, and the bottom 15 in the country, and lost every game, your rpi would be the same as if you lost to every top 15 school, and beat every bottom 15 school.
P.S. Rpi is simple. Most people could memorize it in 5 seconds, and understand it in ten.
And at this point I'm assuming you didn't go to NU, but are you really that dumbstruck that what used to happen sometimes in the Big 10, won't necessarily always happen?
You don't think Egypt still has the strongest military like they did in 3000 bc do you?
My point exactly. But it is in place so they can say "See, we did it scientifically" And basically, for the BIG, the whole thing may have rested on a couple of OOC games that occurred at the beginning of the season.
It hurt NU that the NIT gave automatic bids to regular season champs (10-14 bids) in smaller conferences and that limited the number of at large bids the NIT could issue.
As for trying to explain how we can compensate for loss of Olah and Demps. Let me first commend Olah's development, but the level of athleticism of Pardon and hands and footwork of Pardon as a true frosh v. Olah as a true frosh is not even close. Demps was a great NU player but had huge deficiencies on defense. A longer more athletic lineup of Law and Lindsey means more potential steals and transition opportunities which this team has sorely lacked for many years. Better more athletic defense can lead to offense in addition to all the development needed from Falzon, Lindsey, Law, Benson, Brown, Ash, etc.
As for trying to explain how we can compensate for loss of Olah and Demps. Let me first commend Olah's development, but the level of athleticism of Pardon and hands and footwork of Pardon as a true frosh v. Olah as a true frosh is not even close. Demps was a great NU player but had huge deficiencies on defense. A longer more athletic lineup of Law and Lindsey means more potential steals and transition opportunities which this team has sorely lacked for many years. Better more athletic defense can lead to offense in addition to all the development needed from Falzon, Lindsey, Law, Benson, Brown, Ash, etc.
And while you degrade the BIG for those "easy victories " against Rutgers and MN, you are ignoring that other conferences also offer easy victories against the bottom teams. And with the Big East, every team plays other teams twice each so those top and or mid range teams have 4 potentially easy victories while with the unbalanced schedule in the BIG, you are unlikely to play both bottom feeders twice.
Again, an 11-7 OSU was kept out according to you because of the weakness of MN and Rutgers. but 10-8 teams in Big East were not kept out because of DePaul and St. Johns.
As far as what happened in the BIG in the past, we are talking about 30 years of history since the NCAA went to 64 teams and during that time, never did a team with 11 BIG wins not go and only one case of 10 BIG wins. Till this year.
