Possible Realignment - Wichita St to AAC

wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG


could help the Shockers stave off the next run at Gregg Marshall
Dale Gribble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
Gap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Is being in the AAC so prestigious and lucrative as to stave off a legitimate suitor? Wichita St. has a good program with good support and that is what keeps coaches from making a move to just anywhere P5 from there.
wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Gap said:

Is being in the AAC so prestigious and lucrative as to stave off a legitimate suitor? Wichita St. has a good program with good support and that is what keeps coaches from making a move to just anywhere P5 from there.
Wichita St is routinely screwed over by the NCAA committee wrt seeding. If Marshall feels he will never get a fair shake at WSU, he could be tempted to leave for a bigger program. This, in theory, could help alleviate that concern.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
AG
AAC is a step up from MVC.
txagman1998
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Quote:

If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.


Exactly, it's been a down year in the AAC. This would be an easy add as they could use the same divisional format as football swapping in Wichita State for Navy. Assuming a 16 game conference schedule where you play every team in your division twice and every team in the other division once, Wichita State would get home-and-home's every year with Houston, Memphis, and SMU and single games each year with Cincinnati, Temple, and UConn. That's a big conference schedule upgrade over Illinois St., Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois.
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Quote:

Wichita St is routinely screwed over by the NCAA committee wrt seeding.

Routinely? No. They were a number one in 2014 and a number five in 2012. In other years there were other good teams around them and/or the MVC was pretty weak overall. I'm sure some of those other years the seeding MAY have been off by a seed place or two, but everyone outside of the 1 seeds think they're screwed -- seeding or they got sent to a tougher region.

Can you name and prove a specific year that WSU would have gone farther in the tournament had they been a higher seed?

I've studied the NCAA tournament for a LONG time (30+ years) and the fact is that there is VERY little difference between 5-11 seeds for those teams that get an at-large bid. I don't think the committee puts a great deal of time or effort toward distinguishing these teams. Getting a 7 instead of a 5 or even a 9/10 instead of a 6 may simply have come down to a game or two or to the committee's opinion of one conference. Anyway, WSU got to the FF as a 9 seed and lost in the second round as a 1 seed. If you want to use the former as proof they were screwed, how do you evaluate the latter?

Besides, we need to stop this idiocy that teams are "screwed" every time someone makes a decision you, or even a lot of people, don't agree with -- even when there is good evidence to support the idea that the decision was incorrect.
Pumpkinhead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Some in the media seem to feel that Marshall's personality is too quirky to be a good fit at a 'blue blood', and that he has too nice a deal at WSU to likely leave for your average P5 job.
Tobias Funke
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Quote:


I've studied the NCAA tournament for a LONG time (30+ years) and the fact is....


lol
_lefraud_
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
91AggieLawyer said:

Quote:

Wichita St is routinely screwed over by the NCAA committee wrt seeding.

Routinely? No. They were a number one in 2014 and a number five in 2012. In other years there were other good teams around them and/or the MVC was pretty weak overall. I'm sure some of those other years the seeding MAY have been off by a seed place or two, but everyone outside of the 1 seeds think they're screwed -- seeding or they got sent to a tougher region.

Can you name and prove a specific year that WSU would have gone farther in the tournament had they been a higher seed?

I've studied the NCAA tournament for a LONG time (30+ years) and the fact is that there is VERY little difference between 5-11 seeds for those teams that get an at-large bid. I don't think the committee puts a great deal of time or effort toward distinguishing these teams. Getting a 7 instead of a 5 or even a 9/10 instead of a 6 may simply have come down to a game or two or to the committee's opinion of one conference. Anyway, WSU got to the FF as a 9 seed and lost in the second round as a 1 seed. If you want to use the former as proof they were screwed, how do you evaluate the latter?

Besides, we need to stop this idiocy that teams are "screwed" every time someone makes a decision you, or even a lot of people, don't agree with -- even when there is good evidence to support the idea that the decision was incorrect.

They got screwed by getting matched up with 8 seeded Kentucky in 2014.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
txagman1998 said:

Quote:

That's a big conference schedule upgrade over Illinois St., Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois.

Those three were odd choices because they're usually pretty good.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
They didn't get screwed. That Kentucky team deserved an 8 seed, so someone had to play them early.

They were unlucky, but screwed implies there was a conscious decision behind it, and I don't think that's the case.
wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
91AggieLawyer said:

Quote:

Wichita St is routinely screwed over by the NCAA committee wrt seeding.

Routinely? No. They were a number one in 2014 and a number five in 2012. In other years there were other good teams around them and/or the MVC was pretty weak overall. I'm sure some of those other years the seeding MAY have been off by a seed place or two, but everyone outside of the 1 seeds think they're screwed -- seeding or they got sent to a tougher region.

Can you name and prove a specific year that WSU would have gone farther in the tournament had they been a higher seed?

I've studied the NCAA tournament for a LONG time (30+ years) and the fact is that there is VERY little difference between 5-11 seeds for those teams that get an at-large bid. I don't think the committee puts a great deal of time or effort toward distinguishing these teams. Getting a 7 instead of a 5 or even a 9/10 instead of a 6 may simply have come down to a game or two or to the committee's opinion of one conference. Anyway, WSU got to the FF as a 9 seed and lost in the second round as a 1 seed. If you want to use the former as proof they were screwed, how do you evaluate the latter?

Besides, we need to stop this idiocy that teams are "screwed" every time someone makes a decision you, or even a lot of people, don't agree with -- even when there is good evidence to support the idea that the decision was incorrect.

Complains about idiocy.

Asks someone to prove a team would win a hypothetical game.
Uncle Jimbo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
It's a good move. Creighton has benefited big time from the Big East move.

The MVC is going to be hurting now. I know we interviewed him before, but I'd be interested in giving Ben Jacobson another look for our job. You basically have to be perfect in conference to get an at-large out of the MVC now and that has to be frustrating.

As an aside, it's kind of a bummer to see once-great conferences like the MVC and Mountain West reduced to one bid conferences.
wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
But for an examples of WSU getting screwed by the selection committee, I think a solid argument could me made they were grossly underseeded in 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2013,they were probably underseeded, but not more than the average school does in any given year.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
In the committee's defense, they're a hard team to seed.

They only won three games against RPI top 100 teams all season (#33 Illinois State twice, who they also lost to once, and #66 Colorado State.) They only played three other RPI top 100 teams, lost to all of them, and those were way back in November/December.

It's an interesting case of trying to decide how good a team actually is (which is what folks like KenPom are trying to do) versus what seed a team actually deserves based on what they've actually done (which is what the committee is trying to do.)
wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
bobinator said:

In the committee's defense, they're a hard team to seed.

They only won three games against RPI top 100 teams all season (#33 Illinois State twice, who they also lost to once, and #66 Colorado State.) They only played three other RPI top 100 teams, lost to all of them, and those were way back in November/December.

It's an interesting case of trying to decide how good a team actually is (which is what folks like KenPom are trying to do) versus what seed a team actually deserves based on what they've actually done (which is what the committee is trying to do.)

Agree that they don't present the committee with a ton of high profile games to judge them by, especially in the 2nd half of the season, which goes back to my original point, that moving up a conference would be beneficial to their program.
_lefraud_
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
bobinator said:

They didn't get screwed. That Kentucky team deserved an 8 seed, so someone had to play them early.

They were unlucky, but screwed implies there was a conscious decision behind it, and I don't think that's the case.

I disagree. They're were 3 other teams the committee could have matched up with Kentucky. They chose to give it to the mid-major, who they didn't really have a choice but to give a 1 seed since they were undefeated.

I don't think it was an accident that the underrated (not under-seeded) kentucky team got matched up with Wichita.
paddyv71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
AG
Quote:

Some in the media seem to feel that Marshall's personality is too quirky to be a good fit at a 'blue blood', and that he has too nice a deal at WSU to likely leave for your average P5 job.

I think that's true - when Marshall was at Winthrop, NC State shied away from hiring him for those reasons and instead hired Sidney Lowe, who was a disaster. It's also worth pointing out that Marshall and others at schools without a football program pay their basketball coaches more than most power 5 schools. Compare his $3millon + salary to others who usually have football coaches write in their contract that they must be the highest paid coach.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Well, there were only two others since Florida was a 1 seed that year, but still, I don't think the committee reverse engineered the bracket to screw Wichita. Just the way it worked out.
wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Done

wacarnolds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
With Creighton and now WSU gone, it might cost the bubble an at-large spot moving forward. Of the remaining teams in the MVC, they have produced just a single team worthy of an at-large bid over the last 7 years (Northern Iowa in 2015, who also happened to win the conference tournament)
Positive Yardage
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
AG
The Missouri Valley Conference has the chance to be absolutely atrocious next year. Like conference tournament champion 15-seed bad.
Iowaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Dale Gribble said:

If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
Memphis is in shambles right now.

They are having 6 players transfer out, including 2 going to Kansas.
As of now, they are returning 2 of top 9 players on a team that wasn't very good.
Iowaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
wacarnolds said:

bobinator said:

In the committee's defense, they're a hard team to seed.

They only won three games against RPI top 100 teams all season (#33 Illinois State twice, who they also lost to once, and #66 Colorado State.) They only played three other RPI top 100 teams, lost to all of them, and those were way back in November/December.

It's an interesting case of trying to decide how good a team actually is (which is what folks like KenPom are trying to do) versus what seed a team actually deserves based on what they've actually done (which is what the committee is trying to do.)

Agree that they don't present the committee with a ton of high profile games to judge them by, especially in the 2nd half of the season, which goes back to my original point, that moving up a conference would be beneficial to their program.

Agreed. The problem is they have to play early high profile games to bulk up their schedule, and frequently if they are going to play a top program, it is on the road, and early in the season can be tough in a team is working in new players. After that, they didn't have the games on their schedule to improve their strength of schedule.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again, a big problem with college basketball is the lack of meaningful pre-conference games. Power 5 schools rarely go on the road to play other schools, unless it is a boring neutral site venue, and it is extremely rare that a P5 school goes on the road to play at a good mid-major.
TMartin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
Football is still the big money maker and I didn't know Wichita State had a football team. Is this for BB only?
_lefraud_
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
Iowaggie said:

Dale Gribble said:

If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
Memphis is in shambles right now.

They are having 6 players transfer out, including 2 going to Kansas.
As of now, they are returning 2 of top 9 players on a team that wasn't very good.
History shows that Tubby knows what he is doing. He's made the dance at every stop which includes some pretty mediocre programs like Georgia, Minnesota and Texas Tech.
JJxvi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Wichita State dropped football in 1986
Double Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
WSU is a big reason why RPI stinks. And worrying so much about top 50 wins stinks. WSU was a 7 point favorite over Dayton who was a 7seed. Why didn't Vegas worry about RPI or top 50 wins? Because Vegas unlike the committee actually looks at things that show what kind of a team you are.
Double Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Tubby has no idea what he is doing at Memphis. Memphis isn't the kind of job you piss off all the local high schools. Tubby has come in and totally alienated himself from the fans, local schools. Parrish is pretty clued in and has called what Tubby is doing as a disaster.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Double Diamond said:

WSU is a big reason why RPI stinks. And worrying so much about top 50 wins stinks. WSU was a 7 point favorite over Dayton who was a 7seed. Why didn't Vegas worry about RPI or top 50 wins? Because Vegas unlike the committee actually looks at things that show what kind of a team you are.
Isn't that a problem for the committee though? I love analytics, but wins matter and your schedule matters.

Vegas doesn't have to worry about who "deserves" what seed, but the committee does.

Wichita was a really difficult team to seed this year. And to that end so was Dayton. But the committee, fairly consistently, will go with which teams have more impressive wins.

going by KenPom, WSU had five top 100 wins: #49 Illinois State (twice), #65 Oklahoma, and #86 Colorado State, #97 Loyola-Chicago

Dayton, on the other hand, had 10: #33 Vanderbilt, #34 Rhode Island (twice), #48 VCU, #56 Alabama, #67 East Tennessee State, #85 Davidson, #91 St. Bonaventure (twice), #92 Richmond

So, based on the metrics, WSU was better than Dayton. But did they deserve a higher seed than Dayton based on their actual wins and losses? That's a hard standard to put on the committee. Can you imagine the outrage if their chairman went on CBS afterward saying "Yeah, we put X in the field over Y because even though Y had better wins this season, the metrics say X is actually better."
Double Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
No actually what matters is looking at things that tell you your good. Guess what just because you go 3/8 against top 50 RPI doesn't make you better. Teams like WSU get so few chances. Committee rewards power schools who get chance after chance after chance. WSU is in the boat of, hey you better win off the jump. Unlike a power team who can grow, knowing they'll have a bunch of top 50 chances in January, February and March.
Double Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
But that's just stupid. Dayton is an underdog in a game they shouldn't be. Why? Because of RPI! Sorry top ten Kenpon shouldn't be a ten seed. That's a six seed at worse. Thankfully changes are coming. RPI is going away.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
AG
Meh. The NCAA rewards going out and playing and beating other competitive teams that are doing the same. Go do that and you'll get a nice seed. Its egalitarian in its own sense. Hard to be too upset over it.



Quote:

Committee rewards power schools who get chance after chance after chance.
I'm all about mid-majors getting a fair look and chance in the NCAA postseason---basketball or some other sport. (And I'm all about the non-big football, non-mega budget conference teams having a shot in the NCAA postseason.)

But they know what they have to do. Go play and win some bigger games. They do that and they'll get their chance.
Double Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
There isn't one person out there that says changes aren't coming. Might not be this year, but looking at teams through advanced metrics will be used in the near future. RPI is flawed because it doesn't show how good you are. The mere fact your RPI can rise after losing a game case and point.
Page 1 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Membership Benefits >