nustudent

This. The outcome was predictable.

Don't think strength is necessarily the issue

www.gradtransfertracker.com is a nice new website too

Pry based on the USC game last night. Metu sat out last night's game.

Certainly not a great player...but someone to keep in mind if in fact Jordy or Copeland do leave. He's a better player than Abraham or Okeke was.

Agreed. Not to mention the human bias. It needs to be a combination of both. The problem right now is that they say it is....but they stick to one metric and thats it

Would guess Sunday or Monday

Don't think it is too surprising. Not sure why you even needed an NIT committee...they basically just pulled it over from the KPI.

Yep. Another example of the freakishly bad luck that we experienced all year with the way the schedule shook out.

It's not a one way street though. Can't assume that the Big 10 is the only league that is going to improve. I agree....if we play UCF today. We'd win. And if Providence and Bama played Minnesota, they would win. It goes both ways. Other teams get better too. Of all he metrics, RPIs, SOSs, etc....wins and losses mean the most to me and the fact is that the Big 10 just fared horribly here. They had chances and choked. They have no one to blame but themselves. The Big Ten didn't need to do something legendary in the non-con. Just break even. And it wasn't even close to that. Mix in some very bad perception losses and it gets even worse. Look at it this way. The top 3 big ten teams (seed wise) that were left out were Nebraska, Penn State and Indiana. That's the middle part of your conference and where the conference sagged the most. Those 3 teams combined for 3 total non-con wins over power schools, none of which over an NCAA team. 3 teams and not one win? They also combined for losses to UCF, Rider and blowout losses to IPFW and Indiana State. If the roll was reversed and the committee was putting teams in another conference in with that criteria....I'm sure we wouldn't be enamored with the decision making. Won't argue that there needs to be some sort of adjustment. Winning carries all the weight and losing carries none. There needs to be some variance/weighting to that. But no matter what system is being used....what metric...when your league does nothing but eat a dick in the non-con....you are going to be fighting an uphill battle.

The RPI can certainly use some revamping.... But the Big 10 went 21-32 against other major competition (ACC/Big East/Big 12/SEC/Pac12). And mixed in a number of losses to low/mid majors (some quality, some not). And of those 21 wins, only 10 of them were over teams that are in the tournament. That is not a metric that is flawed. This is why our RPI was what it was and why the opinion of the Big 10 was bad. Perception was bad because it matched the performance. The Big 10 may not have been as bad as what everyone says it was. The issue is/was...the Big 10's (as a conference on the whole) on court performance, only supports the negative opinions. And I think everyone, even the Big 10 detractors, that the top 4 (Michigan as the 4th) is legit. Of those 21 wins, 10 of them are by the top 4 teams. The bottom 10 teams combined to go 13-26. That's why the Big 10's middle and lower pack isn't getting any love.

I could buy this take if the stats didn't show the Big 10 was weak. There's no bias in stating the Big 10 had 7 100+ RPI teams. There's no bias in stating the Big 10 only had 2 51-100 ranked RPI teams. The Big 10's non-con results are biased. They are just really weak. If the Big 10 had a strong non-con with a bunch of good wins and people were saying the Big 10 was bad, I could buy it. But that wasn't the case.

Bilas is right. They need to get some basketball guys on the committee, not just a room full of administrators. It needs to be a mix. Don't go full on media, but get some guys who cover the game. Get some out of work coaches. Get some ADs.

The Big Ten was very top heavy this year. There is no bias. It has nothing to do with the names on the jerseys. It has everything to do with the names on the win columns on the resumes. The two most prolific OOC wins by Nebraska and Penn State are Boston College (12th team in the ACC) and Pittsburgh (dead last in the ACC). That's pathetic. Now we did a great job of winning the games we should. But that wasn't a part of the criteria (see also St Marys and USC and MTSU) but that's not bias. Whether it should have been part of the criteria is the argument

Maybe not. But they are. And they have a high rpi with good wins. Bama also has several solid conference wins and the sec did perform well in the non con

Leron Black of Illinois also putting his name out for draft consideration

Id consider a 15 spot move from just one game to be significant. Not to matter the perception of the upcoming games

Yep. It was the Big 10's pathetic performance that got us here.

We were hurt by it because we didn't win and because Lovett and Tacko got hurt. Otherwise it was absolutely on par with what we would have needed. Had we won, even one more game against UCF, our SOS is DRAMATICALLY better. Some of those games that UT, OU, etc played...weren't scheduled. They got them as they won prior games. As it stands, we had several opportunities for solid wins. Had we won another game....those opportunities double.

Not disagreeing that the non-con had a part to play. Where we differ is that...I don't see an issue with the scheduling. If we had beaten Kansas, Creighton and UCF....we'd have our metrics. It was about performance in the non-con, not scheduling.

That's my issue with the quadrants. Some road/neutral wins are being way too highly valued. Beating Maryland at home is a tougher game than at Buffalo or Loyola (Chi). But not according to the quadrants.

This is why I'm leery of going overboard on the OOC scheduling. Looking back at the last 5 years.... The Big 10 had 7 100+ RPI teams this year. The most of any year in the last 5. In fact the conference average the previous 4 is just 4.25. A significant difference. It also only had 2 teams rated from 51-100. Only one other time in the last 5 years has it had that. The average is 3.75. Again...nearly cut in half compared to the average. The average RPI rating per conference team was 90.36. Two years ago, the average was 96.5, heavily skewed by Rutgers (294) and Minnesota (254). The other 3 years....66, 74 and 63. That's a lot of Q1/Q2 opportunities right there. We had 4 Q1 opportunities in regular season conference play this year (@MSU, Mich, @Ohio State, @Purdue). If you use the RPIs from last year with this year's schedule...we would have had 8 opportunities. 7 opportunities each from 13-14, 14-15 and 15-16. Averaging 7.25 opportunities a year. Again...nearly cut in half this year. That's where the difference is coming from. That and losing the opportunities we did have in the non-con. People are frustrated and I get that....but the vast majority of the issue came from stuff completely out of our control. As I mentioned last week....we got dealt a ton of bad luck this year that you can't account for. And we didn't make any luck for ourselves early on either. Odds are....it won't be this way again. The question then will be....what is the criteria the committee is using in the future. The changing goal posts of the committee is where my frustration lies.

They beat OU and Rhode Island. That’s two tournament teams. Two more than we had. And the rest of the SEC was very successful as well. Comparing their wins to the big tens, it’s a very stark difference

And had UCF and St. John’s not had injuries. We’d have had 4. Had we beaten UCF, we’d have had 2 more. Biggest difference is those teams won their tournament games. We didn’t The disparity in q1 opportunities came from conference play, with the conference having a flukishly bad year

Obviously can't say for certain that it 'will' be good. We can say though that this year is an outlier in terms of performance and RPI measures. Based on recent history, there's no reason to believe this year is the norm. The 20 game question is solely based on the performance and what the NCAA criteria is. If the selection criteria is the same as this year, and the conference is stronger, the 20 games schedule is a bonus. If it's weak like this year, the 20 game schedule may hurt.