I agree on RU. Likewise, Wisky benefited from a hot start and soft BIG schedule compared to others. I have at least 5 teams in the BIG that will make more noise than Wisky. Check the Vegas $ too and not the AP clowns. Wisky is WAY overseeded. They are a one trick pony going down fast
Illinois #16 in AP Poll
- Status
Over the last two months, they are 10-7 with losses to PSU, Minnesota and Maryland.
Over the last month, they're 5-3 with one double digit victory (Illinois).
I feel like people are overrating Rutgers over two wins (home vs Illinois, which was arguably Illinois' worst game of the year, and home vs MSU 6 weeks ago, which is arguably Rutgers best game of the year).
Looking at just recent play (emphasizing play over the last month), Sagarin's "Recent" rating has Rutgers at 31, which is about as charitable as you can get for them. The teams ahead of them:
1. Baylor
2. Tennessee
3. Kentucky
4. Villanova
5. Arkansas
6. Gonzaga
7. Arizona
8. Iowa
9. Auburn
10. Illinois
11. St. Mary's
12. Murray State
13. Wisconsin
14. North Carolina
15. Kansas
16. Texas Tech
17. Providence
18. Purdue
19. Connecticut
20. Memphis
21. UCLA
22. Duke
23. Boise State
24. Seton Hall
25. Oklahoma State (another suspect team over the year that had a good last month)
26. Colorado State
27. San Diego State
28. Michigan (won AT Rutgers in the last month)
29. Loyola IL
30. Houston (who, let's face it, haven't been great the past month, but still good)
Texas Tech has a more impressive resume, do they? Losses to Okla, TCU, Iowa St, K St. All teams below .500 in the B12. Beat Baylor X2 and Kansas once. Not sure about that but my point isn't about Texas Tech anyway. My point is about Wisconsin who shouldn't be ranked ahead of us for the reasons I stated.
I think we're a better team than Wisconsin. But their overall record is better, and at the end of the day, that's going to put them ahead of us 9 times out of 10. And it's not that they played an easier schedule either, they're actually just behind us on SOS, but it's very close (#14 vs #16 per Kenpom). They're just very lucky. 8th luckiest team in the NCAA per Kenpom. But I don't think most AP voters adjust for luck.
As for Texas Tech, other than K-State those losses you mentioned are all against NET top 50 teams, so they're not getting dinged much for those. K-State is 71 in NET, so pretty comparable to our loss at Rutgers (76 in NET). They also have 2x wins vs Texas, a win vs Tennessee. FWIW Kenpom has Texas Tech at 11 and us at 18. And Wisconsin at 30.
I think if I read 'their overall record is better' again, I'm going to .... So what? Wisconsin and Illinois didn't play the exact same schedule and definitely didn't have the same circumstances as far as injuries, illnesses, and suspensions to players. Their record being better than ours means nothing. I know what their record is in the Big 10 and what their record is against us. Neither of them are better than Illinois.
They lost to Iowa St when they were ranked 11…They’ve beaten 7 ranked opponents to our 3. They’ve been Baylor twice and one of the wins was when they’re ranked #1. In AP poll who you beat matters more than who you lose to and if you beat a top 10 team at their best that’s more impressive in their view than losing to a sub .500 conference play team which they would chalk it up as a fluke (also helps that 3 of the 4 losses you mentioned were by less than 5 points). They 7 wins against ranked opponents is more impressive than anything we’ve done, at least in the voters’ eyes.
TTU ranking matters in the UW and ILL ranking conversation because they basically set the ceiling for the highest ranked 8 loss team. Now you could argue both TTU and ILL should be ranked above UW but their 8-3 Q1 record and the fact that they share the best record in B1G with only has 6 losses overall ultimately got the nod from voters over the other 2.
Relax man. I agree with you that we are better than Wisconsin. If I were an AP voter I'd rank us ahead of them. But this is the AP poll. A lot of these voters probably know a lot less about the Big 10 and the merits of these teams than we do. If you look at the efficiency based metrics it looks like Wisconsin is way overranked by the AP. But we appear to be appropriately ranked, and that's what matters to me, tbh.
I would venture to guess that the percentage of voters who watch half the games is the same if not (slightly) higher than fans who complain about why they are not ranked higher.
As you've said all that matters is what the committee thinks and even that is not as important as just playing your best ball for 6 straight games.
Ok good for them. Iowa St is no longer ranked number 11 and have a below .500 record in the B12 so that is bad loss for them. Texas Tech resume is not better than ours.
The resumes are actually very close. We are 6-5 v Q1, they are 6-8. We are 6-3 v Q2, they are 7-0. That makes us 12-8 v combined Q1/Q2 to their 13-8. Neither team has a Q3 or Q4 loss. Their wins over Baylor and Kansas are probably a little more impressive than our wins over Wisconsin and Iowa. They rank higher than us in Kenpom, Torvik and NET. So probably a slight edge to Tech based on efficiency metrics, but very similar resumes and barring a large difference in conference tourney outcomes probably end up seeded similarly.
Edit: also Iowa St. is ranked 41 in NET, so for resume purposes is not a bad loss. Rutgers, which isn't a bad loss resume-wise for us, is ranked 35 spots lower at 76.
Last edited:
If you use that logic, our win against the highest ranked opponent, MSU, is no longer impressive since they’re now unranked.
Your argument is centered around we haven’t lost to many bad teams, which is fine and all, but not how most people, especially AP voters, vote for top 25. The saying to be the best you gotta beat the best applies here. TTU’s signature wins were against the #1 team on the road and also beating the #6 Jayhawks. Again, they have 7 wins against ranked team in total. Our signature win was against a previously ranked #10 MSU at home that we won by 1, which according to the same logic you applied isn’t impressive given MSU is now unranked. And we only have 4 wins against ranked teams (2 if you exclude wins against MSU). That what the voters see when they’re submitting their votes.
Huh? I'm not sure how you equate our TWO wins against MSU (11-9) to their loss to Iowa St. (7-11)
Huh? I'm not sure how you equate our TWO wins against MSU to their loss to Iowa St.
You discredit their loss against an #11 ranked team because they’re no longer a ranked team while 2 of our 4 wins against ranked teams were against a team no longer ranked…
Yeah I discredit their loss, they lost to a team that is UNDER .500 in their league. They lost to 5 teams below .500 (K St., Ia. St, Okla, Okla. St., TCU). That doesn't equate to our two WINS against MSU. Stop.
And we have 3 losses against opponents far worse than the worst loss for TTU based on NET ranking. So what point are you trying to prove? That 4 losses against teams in the top 50 NET are bad, but 3 losses against opponents outside of top 75 is not as bad?
This argument is silly anyways. You can’t show people how you are by only beating teams you’re supposed to beat and failing to win big ones - twice against Purdue and once against AZ. That just shows the voters that even at your best there is a ceiling to how good your team is. Those are the wins that would have mattered in the AP voting. TTU several questionable losses and all came to play for the big ones and has shown voters how good they are when they’re at their best, that’s why they’re ahead in the poll. You can come up with your own criteria for ranking teams but I am telling you that that’s how the AP voters are voting.
- Status