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.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.
Quote:
If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
Quote:
Wichita St is routinely screwed over by the NCAA committee wrt seeding.
Quote:
I've studied the NCAA tournament for a LONG time (30+ years) and the fact is....
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.
Those three were odd choices because they're usually pretty good.txagman1998 said:Quote:
That's a big conference schedule upgrade over Illinois St., Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Memphis is in shambles right now.Dale Gribble said:
If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
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.
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.Iowaggie said:Memphis is in shambles right now.Dale Gribble said:
If you add WSU and get UConn and Memphis to shape up, that's a really good bball conference.
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.
Isn't that a problem for the committee though? I love analytics, but wins matter and your schedule matters.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.
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.)Quote:
Committee rewards power schools who get chance after chance after chance.