PSU - Rider Dual Thread
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
The Nomad Knows.........but
I'll take Cael.
I suspect our guys had a very difficult week of practice and some guys went into Rider damn near exhausted. There is a whole month until things matter. CE has probably been going through hell. Maybe he will put a little English on his tournament performance..........
I'll take Cael.
I suspect our guys had a very difficult week of practice and some guys went into Rider damn near exhausted. There is a whole month until things matter. CE has probably been going through hell. Maybe he will put a little English on his tournament performance..........
Mostly.
The confusion by many is applying multiple definitions to "auto-qualifier" when there is only one definition: the conference tournament champ.
(I'm guilty of this misnomer myself -- I often use "auto-qualifier" when the correct term is "pre-allocation" for # slots allocated to conferences.)
Those who fill those spots are not auto-qualifiers or pre-allocations. They're qualifiers.
Within that: 1 and 2 are correct in spirit -- however many spots B10 gets, finish that high and you're a qualifier.
3 is a mashup that combined is incorrect. If he places high enough, he's in, period. In which case, # matches does not matter.
If he does not finish that high, then at-large eligibility is the next question. # matches matters toward some but not all at-large eligibility criteria. Eligibility requires only 2 of 7 criteria, so he potentially can be eligible without # matches.
If he needs an at-large and is eligible for one, then we get into selection criteria, which are different from eligibility criteria.
Last edited:
That's the most likely scenario. Nothing is official until this week's upcoming RPI and Coaches' Poll (that account for this weekend's matches), but we can make some reasonable guesses:
Earned allocations (5): Deakin, Saldate, Lewan, Young, Coleman. All have Win % > .700, and high enough in RPI and/or Coaches' Poll that they won't fall out.
Likely (1): Robb. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank Y. He just today became eligible for an RPI; guessing he achieves it. He's faced a tough schedule, though I'm too lazy to look up opponents' schedules.
On the bubble (1): Model. Win % N, RPI Y, Rank TBD. RPI is safe but he's at risk of losing his coaches' ranking after today's loss.
Long shots (1): Kanniard. Win % N, RPI TBD, Rank N. He was RPI 33 on 2/6; if he both holds RPI and gets ranked ... hence long shot.
No allocation (6):
- Berge: too few matches to be eligible for any of the 3 criteria.
- Gilcher: N, N, N (1 match short of RPI eligibility)
- Hubbard: N, N, N
- Roberts, Stapleton, Cordio: all sub-.500 (Roberts does have RPI).
Being put in that headlock could have taken the starch out of him.
According to Cael's post match interview, he said that Berge has to steal someone's spot, that means if we have 6 allocated he needs to finish 6th or better. Cael then said he only needs 5 matches to get a seed at nationals, other than 32 - 33. That was from Cael's lips. He will get 3 more matches at B1Gs. Cael even said if Rider hadn't agreed to the extra match he would have found another match for Berge.
Was just coming to post about him. He's available next Monday as part of a media call with reporters ahead of Penn State's trip to Big Ten's, which signals to me that whatever was going on almost certainly was minimal and won't keep him out of action in the postseason.
Got it, well then that would certainly add up with him being back and good to go. Good deal.
Get unlimited access today.