They're going to accept it and keep things status quo and justify it by saying it's a learning opportunity on how to win and close games. But that's irrelevant if you're leaning heavily on the starters and literally every one of them isn't on the team next year.
Accept, but would only play Galloway, Geronimo, Bates, Leal, Duncomb, Lander, and the upperclassmen who are committed to returning next year. Otherwise, no value in playing the NIT with the same starters we've had all year.
OSU only dropped 2 spots in NET to 22, so they are still a solid Q1 win for IU. Nebraska did rise enough in NET for both of IU's wins to be considered Q3 vs them.
Just saw that @IUc2016 already posted this. Feel free to delete my post.
Worst case scenario is osu win becomes q2, but the Nebraska net doesn’t rise enough for the road win to become a q2 as well. Best case scenario is that Nebraska road win becomes a q2 and osu remains a q1 win.
Hopefully the sor metrics get updated for conference tournament games. If iu gets the win vs Rutgers and the performance metrics stay relatively the same, I don’t see the rationale behind putting any A10/AAC bubble team in over IU. If IU’s sor is 30+ spots ahead of these other teams, why should non conference sor be looked at.
I'm guessing IU ends up in the 7/10 or 8/9 game, so they would probably end up playing one of: Penn State, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, or Michigan. And if they needed another win, they'd probably be out of luck having to face Illinois or Purdue.
An extra non Q1/Q2 game doesn't add value. Hopefully, IU takes advantage of the quick turnaround for OSU Monday. If not, they have to beat Rutgers/Maryland at home, Minnesota on the road, and the first game of the BTT to have a realistic chance of getting in. Even then, they'd be far from a lock.