American Athletic Conference

[RoyalShock]

With a few bounces, who knows how many more games WSU and HCGM would have won. Two games versus Kentucky for sure were very even matchups and then the game versus Louisville. This program is good. Very good. They need to start getting the benefit of the doubt. All they do is win in the tournament. Has a Marshall team ever been one-and-done in the big tournament?

2012 vs. VCU.

[Bluzrover]

Once the announcement is made, do you suppose Kai will change the countdown clock from "basketball" to "Start of AAC Play"?

[Aargh]

WSU is one of something like 5 programs that have won a game in the tourney in each of the last 5 years, but...

...evidently that's not good enough for those who think we should know our place, accept the lack of respect, and just keep our mouths shut, and our concerns to ourselves.

Those seem to be the same people who refuse to give WSU any respect even after WSU has won about 2/3 of their tourney games in the last 6 years. Nope. That's not enough. we should learn to keep our mouths shut or people won't respect us. The doubters, including some in this very thread, will never respect us because we don't play in a league that qualifies for national championships IN A DIFFERENT SPORT!

Evidently WSU and its fans have a bad reputation on the East Coast because we complain when we're treated unfairly. Are there really that many KU fans on the East Coast?

[xazshox]

One of the things I read after WSU was seeded improperly is that the Selection committee isn't suppposed to take past years accomplishments into account.

[Cdizzle]

One of the things I read after WSU was seeded improperly is that the Selection committee isn't suppposed to take past years accomplishments into account.

Which I would agree with.

If it was applied universally.

[Kel Varnsen]

One of the things I read after WSU was seeded improperly is that the Selection committee isn't suppposed to take past years accomplishments into account.

I agree. However, I think we as a program have highlighted weaknesses in the committee's current methods and that they should use that to change their criteria.

But past seasons should not be taken into account when selecting or seeing teams. That opens up another can of worms and provides another opportunity for subjectivity.

[chitown_shocker]

I agree. However, I think we as a program have highlighted weaknesses in the committee's current methods and that they should use that to change their criteria.

But past seasons should not be taken into account when selecting or seeing teams. That opens up another can of worms and provides another opportunity for subjectivity.

Exactly - you don't need to trust "last year" when you use all the data you have. This year our RPI was the OUTLIER and even that said we were better than our seed.

There is a Reason Ken Pom the human likes WSU - it's because WSU consistently prove that KENPOM the algorithm knows more than the "experts."

[GreatWhiteBuffalo]

I agree. However, I think we as a program have highlighted weaknesses in the committee's current methods and that they should use that to change their criteria.

But past seasons should not be taken into account when selecting or seeing teams. That opens up another can of worms and provides another opportunity for subjectivity.

While I agree with your assessment of using/not using past seasons to decide seeding, I truly believe that "name brand" schools definitely get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to bracket placement. If it came down to a 4 seed being Wichita State or a name brand such as Kentucky, UNC, KU, Duke, Gonzaga, etc., I have no doubt those schools, regardless of record, would get the nod over WSU. I also believe that most P5 teams would get the nod over WSU. The "brand names" would get it because they are "basketball schools" where as the P5s play tougher competition year-in and year-out. Name certainly plays into the seeding process and I feel that name is automatically associated with past seasons successes. It's just human nature.

Until the computers pick the seeds based off an agreed upon set of regulations and parameters, we will continue to see human error clog the system. Either that or the committee needs to contain as many non-P5 members as P5 members. RPI needs to go away and they simply need to adopt a universal method for drafting a better bracket.

[ICT2CLT]

While I agree with your assessment of using/not using past seasons to decide seeding, I truly believe that "name brand" schools definitely get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to bracket placement. If it came down to a 4 seed being Wichita State or a name brand such as Kentucky, UNC, KU, Duke, Gonzaga, etc., I have no doubt those schools, regardless of record, would get the nod over WSU. I also believe that most P5 teams would get the nod over WSU. The "brand names" would get it because they are "basketball schools" where as the P5s play tougher competition year-in and year-out. Name certainly plays into the seeding process and I feel that name is automatically associated with past seasons successes. It's just human nature.

Until the computers pick the seeds based off an agreed upon set of regulations and parameters, we will continue to see human error clog the system. Either that or the committee needs to contain as many non-P5 members as P5 members. RPI needs to go away and they simply need to adopt a universal method for drafting a better bracket.

While I don't think we'll ever see a totally unbiased system without human intervention, I agree with your assessment that name brands will always get the nod over lesser-known quantities, as unfair as that is. Despite the bad seeding this year and many of the previous years, I see signs that WSU is turning itself into one of those brands. A few years ago most of the people I met had to ask me where/what Wichita State was when asked where I went to school. That has changed. Charles Barkley and other talking heads calling out the committee has to help as well. The shockers are making a name for themselves. Making the move into a new conference and continuing to dominate tougher competition would be huge for the brand. If WSU were to consistently finish 1st or 2nd in a league with 3-5 bids, and keep winning in the tournament like they have under HCGM, I think they would get that same favorable seeding.

I'm high on the AAC. Because of the positioning of the schools in large metro areas, I think the league could intentionally get to that power level. Even if there is further consolidation to 4 X 16 team leagues, the AAC would be in a much better position than the P5 schools that get left out of that round of consolidation.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Since they like to use the NIT to experiment with things, they should seed it next year by KenPom. Would be interesting to see what happens.

[SHOCKvalue]

Since they like to use the NIT to experiment with things, they should seed it next year by KenPom. Would be interesting to see what happens.

EDIT: NM you said NIT, not NCAA

[Kel Varnsen]

While I agree with your assessment of using/not using past seasons to decide seeding, I truly believe that "name brand" schools definitely get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to bracket placement. If it came down to a 4 seed being Wichita State or a name brand such as Kentucky, UNC, KU, Duke, Gonzaga, etc., I have no doubt those schools, regardless of record, would get the nod over WSU. I also believe that most P5 teams would get the nod over WSU. The "brand names" would get it because they are "basketball schools" where as the P5s play tougher competition year-in and year-out. Name certainly plays into the seeding process and I feel that name is automatically associated with past seasons successes. It's just human nature.

Until the computers pick the seeds based off an agreed upon set of regulations and parameters, we will continue to see human error clog the system. Either that or the committee needs to contain as many non-P5 members as P5 members. RPI needs to go away and they simply need to adopt a universal method for drafting a better bracket.

I definitely see what you're saying. The result of the committee using the RPI and also delineating "Record vs. Top 50/100" is:

P5 schools schedule each other to game the RPI -->
Non-P5 schools have fewer chances to win games vs. Top 50/100 -->
P5 schools rack up a vast majority of at-large bids -->
The best P5 schools (UK, UNC, KU, Duke, etc.) end up with the highest seeds because they are traditionally at or near the top of their respective P5 conferences

So the schools you mentioned getting top seeds is, in my opinion, simply collateral damage from the monopoly the P5 schools have on the RPI. I don't think the committee intends to do so (just look at the schools represented on the committee, it's more wide-ranging across high- to low-major programs than you might think), but those schools end up with the highest seeds because they are consistently among the best in their conferences.

[proshox]

While I don't think we'll ever see a totally unbiased system without human intervention, I agree with your assessment that name brands will always get the nod over lesser-known quantities, as unfair as that is. Despite the bad seeding this year and many of the previous years, I see signs that WSU is turning itself into one of those brands. A few years ago most of the people I met had to ask me where/what Wichita State was when asked where I went to school. That has changed. Charles Barkley and other talking heads calling out the committee has to help as well. The shockers are making a name for themselves. Making the move into a new conference and continuing to dominate tougher competition would be huge for the brand. If WSU were to consistently finish 1st or 2nd in a league with 3-5 bids, and keep winning in the tournament like they have under HCGM, I think they would get that same favorable seeding.

I'm high on the AAC. Because of the positioning of the schools in large metro areas, I think the league could intentionally get to that power level. Even if there is further consolidation to 4 X 16 team leagues, the AAC would be in a much better position than the P5 schools that get left out of that round of consolidation.

One of my buddies made a suggestion that will not get implemented, but is a fun thought experiment.

First, the committee pick the teams in the field. Next the committee picks the four “1 seeds” in order. Here is where the idea kicks-in:

The four “1 seeds” draft for teams in their region.

It would be a reverse draft

The draft would start with the 16 seeds, followed by the 15 seeds, and so on

It would be on a S-Curve; therefore, the number one overall seed would get the first pick on the most important seeds (16, 8, 4, 2)

This will tell us how the “market” would seed each team. Could you imagine a made for TV event that worked like this… It will never happen, but it is fun to consider.

Can you imagine the story lines?

[ICT2CLT]

While I agree with your assessment of using/not using past seasons to decide seeding, I truly believe that "name brand" schools definitely get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to bracket placement. If it came down to a 4 seed being Wichita State or a name brand such as Kentucky, UNC, KU, Duke, Gonzaga, etc., I have no doubt those schools, regardless of record, would get the nod over WSU. I also believe that most P5 teams would get the nod over WSU. The "brand names" would get it because they are "basketball schools" where as the P5s play tougher competition year-in and year-out. Name certainly plays into the seeding process and I feel that name is automatically associated with past seasons successes. It's just human nature.

Until the computers pick the seeds based off an agreed upon set of regulations and parameters, we will continue to see human error clog the system. Either that or the committee needs to contain as many non-P5 members as P5 members. RPI needs to go away and they simply need to adopt a universal method for drafting a better bracket.

While I don't think we'll ever see a totally unbiased system without human intervention, I agree with your assessment that name brands will always get the nod over lesser-known quantities, as unfair as that is. Despite the bad seeding this year and many of the previous years, I see signs that WSU is turning itself into one of those brands. A few years ago most of the people I met had to ask me where/what Wichita State was when asked where I went to school. That has changed. Charles Barkley and other talking heads calling out the committee has to help as well. The shockers are making a name for themselves. Making the move into a new conference and continuing to dominate tougher competition would huge for the brand. If WSU were to consistently finish 1st or 2nd in a league with 3-5 bids, and keep winning in the tournament like they have under HCGM, I think they would get that same favorable seeding.

I'm high on the AAC. Because of the positioning of the schools in large metro areas, I think the league could intentionally get to that power level. Even if there is further consolidation to 4 X 16 team leagues, the AAC would be in a much better position than the P5 schools that get left out of that round of consolidation.

[ICT2CLT]

One of my buddies made a suggestion that will not get implemented, but is a fun thought experiment.

First, the committee pick the teams in the field. Next the committee picks the four “1 seeds” in order. Here is where the idea kicks-in:

The four “1 seeds” draft for teams in their region.

It would be a reverse draft

The draft would start with the 16 seeds, followed by the 15 seeds, and so on

It would be on a S-Curve; therefore, the number one overall seed would get the first pick on the most important seeds (16, 8, 4, 2)

This will tell us how the “market” would seed each team. Could you imagine a made for TV event that worked like this… It will never happen, but it is fun to consider.

Can you imagine the story lines?

I love it. It'll never happen obviously, but a system like that would never have WSU underseeded because the Coaches know what's up. Also, imagine the years WSU is a 1-seed and HCGM gets to pick the competition.