This year's candidate for most unusual resume', at least in my book, is that of the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. I've been doing this for many years now, and I don't ever recall ever coming across one quite like the one they have assembled this year. As a result, trying to figure out how the Committee will view them begs the question 'What to do with Rutgers'?
At first glance Rutgers has a strong resume' for an at large team. The metrics rankings suggest a team that would get seeded safely in the field around the 7-9 seed line. They have a NET Ranking of 31, Predictive Metrics Ranking Average of 31.3, and strength of record of 38. Additionally, they own a Non-Conference strength of schedule (NCSOS) inside in 100 (out of about 350) where they won 8 of 10 games. They have 4 Quad 1 wins, and 8 combined wins among Quad 1 and the top tier of Quad 2. They are guaranteed to be no worse than .500 during the Regular season playing in arguably the country's best conference, top to bottom. Taking these metrics and comparing them to those of the 2019 At-Large teams selected, this compares very similarly to Iowa, who finished 10-10 in the Big Ten, had a NET Rating of 40, predictive metrics average of 37, had 4 Quad 1 wins, and were 9-10 vs. Quad 1 and top tier of Quad 2. That Iowa team was ranked 37th on the committee's final seed list and earned a 10 seed, several positions above the last 4 byes ... in other words ... safely in. If anything, Rutgers high level measurements are better than Iowa's. On the surface they would appear to have already locked a bid. However, on my seed list I have them as one of the last 4 teams in, and hanging on by thread!
You see, this Rutgers team presents a very interesting wrinkle in their resume' that varies dramatically from Iowa a year ago. While Iowa demonstrated they were capable of winning away from Iowa City by going 6-7 in Quad 1 and 2 games away from home, Rutgers has won exactly ZERO such games this season. Despite 18 wins, and nearly half of them against teams with NET ratings no worse than 54, not a singe one has come away from Rutgers home gym. Rutgers is a shocking 0-9 against Quad 1 or 2 teams away from home. They have just 1 road win the entire season! That came against Nebraska who has won just 7 games this season and hold a NET Rating of 193. If you can't win away from your gym, its hard to convince the selection committee you could do it in a Tournament against Quad 1 and 2 level talent where every game is away from home.
The fact is, I don't recall ever seeing a resume' in which an at-large contender did not have a single road or neutral court victory to at least one of the top 190 teams in the country, as measured by the NCAA's primary ranking tool. I went back and looked to see if I could find a comparable in team in terms of road/neutral futility in recent years and could find only one remotely comparable team. There was no other team even close at least in the last 5 seasons. Only one was even in the neighborhood. In 2017 Syracuse entered Selection Sunday squarely on the bubble. 2017 was before the NCAA started using either the NET Rankings as its primary sorting tool, or grouping wins and losses based on Quads so an apple to apples comparison is difficult. However that Syracuse team entered selection Sunday with just a 2-11 record away from home and none of them came against teams ranked in the RPI Top 50, which is roughly comparable to today's Quad 1 + Top Tier of Quad 2 groupings. That team was left out of the field, most likely for Kansas State who was 9-8 away from home. Of those 9 wins 5 were against the RPI top 50. This despite the fact that Syracuse had more wins against the RPI Top 25, 50 and 100 than K-State. Hard to imagine that road record was not a huge part of the calculus to take K-State instead of Syracuse.
The comparison isn't perfect. Syracuse carried a poor 200+ NCSOS and an RPI of well over 80. Those are (or were in the case of RPI) numbers that no doubt contributed to being left out of the field. As noted, Rutgers carries a very good NET (which replaced RPI) and reasonably strong NCSOS that is going to offset the poor road record to some degree. How much is the part that is difficult to predict, precisely because we haven't seen a team with a resume' quite like Rutgers in some time, if ever.
My gut feeling is that if Rutgers fails to pick up a Q1 or Q2 Road or neutral win before next Sunday, they won't get in, and it won't really be all that close. Getting only 1 may not even be enough. The committee has consistently emphasized that demonstrating the ability to win away from home, which all NCAA Tournament games obviously are, is a factor in the selection and seeding processes. Rutgers current level of futility in this area appears nearly unprecedented among tournament at-large teams in at least the past 5 years. Tomorrow's game at Purdue (NET 32) gives Rutgers perhaps their last chance at a Quad 1 road win (and a top tier of Q1 at that). A loss tomorrow could be fatal for Rutgers, unless they can string together a couple Q1 and/or Q2 wins in the Big Ten Tournament. Even at that, they are likely to be right on or very near the cut line.
If I'm wrong, it may be an indication that the NET and Predictive Metric rankings carry more weight than actual game results with this particular committee. If that's the case, several other teams with strong NET rankings but light in wins in some other measurable way, may secure seedings that are higher than teams with similar profiles that have come along have in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment