The Case against Wichita State

[ShockerPrez]

I'm not taking exception to the evidence per se. I'm just surprised that a national sports news network sees to it that they must write an article about a mid-major program because there is an off-chance that they may make the tournament as an at-large, when it is neither a forgone conclusion that they will, nor some sort of hot topic throughout the sporting community.

That's all I'm saying.

[ABC]

Northwestern State was 60 in 2006.
Miami (Ohio) was 85.

[shox8498]

I only have one thought after reading through this thread.

At least they're talking about us.

[wusphlash]

I only have one thought after reading through this thread.

At least they're talking about us.

Any publicity is good publicity. 8) 8)

[SB Shock]

You have to also consider that our record in Gregg's first two years was not good. That makes us even less attractive.

That is not necessarily true. BCS schools stay away from scheduling GOOD mid-tier teams because they don't want the risk.

[cjp27]

You have to also consider that our record in Gregg's first two years was not good. That makes us even less attractive.

That is not necessarily true. BCS schools stay away from scheduling GOOD mid-tier teams because they don't want the risk.

The problem is that they don't have to schedule good teams. They have 8-10 or more built in opportunities for top 100 wins with their conference schedule. We don't. K-State can schedule Alcorn State x10 in the non conference but if they take care of business in the Big 12, they'll have a ton of top 100 or top 50 wins.

I don't get why we don't schedule more top mid majors, though. I really can't imagine that we don't try, but it's still mind-boggling how there aren't at least a couple on the schedule.

[ShockerPrez]

I'm sure that if we get snubbed without having a major lapse(s) ala last year, than I believe that there will have to be a serious reconsideration of our scheduling. Including taking 1 or 2 buyout games if necessary. The problem is that I think that this year's team is going to be stronger than next year's, just for the fact that we lose 3 of our 4 bigs with experience. So we will have missed our chance so to speak.

We can schedule those games next year and will more than likely get worked inside against a big 12 type team or similar. I will hear any arguments to the contrary, that's just my opinion of our near future at this time.

[tropicalshox]

IMO it's because we want home games and so do other top mid majors that can afford to buy games. If mid majors schedule a one and one against each other that's one less home game in two years. I assume there is a money reason for this. Another reason is we and every other mid major wants to win, just like majors.

[tw805]

I'm not sure this is as easy as claiming "scheduling." What some are saying about this being a catch-22 is right. Plenty of others beat the crap out of cupcakes during the non-conference season, then ride the coattails of a usually overrated conference to skate into the tournament. As long as the process favors the big conferences through the mandatory games they play, it will always be like this. We can't help who will schedule us, and we shouldn't be penalized because the MVC is a god-awful conference right now.

In KC today, it was being suggested that a Big 12 team with an 8-8 or 7-9 conference record has a legitimate shot at making the tournament. And the person suggesting it was right. That is total bullshit. Right now Missouri is 17-5 overall, but 3-4 in conference. Their "quality win" was against Illinois. No others. They are currently ranked #14 in the entire country.

We are going to be frustrated on an annual basis. It really doesn't matter who we schedule. Let's pretend we beat the crap out of Connecticut and then beat Michigan State. Further assume we ended with only three losses overall. Does anyone here really think we would be higher than a six seed? That some .500 team from a "power conference" wouldn't be rated higher than us? The system is totally screwed up, and it's not going to change as long as the cartel is allowed to operate unmolested. So we can really just forget the scheduling issue. There is no reason we shouldn't win the conference tournament every year, particularly when we beat up on the MVC all the time.

[Rosewood]

I have not read the article, so I am asking this question so that my mind can wrap around this subject:

Did ESPN really spend a whole reporter's time writing an article on why WSU should not be in the tournament?

Seriously? I wasn't aware that us getting in the tournament would be a travesty of national sport, thus necessitating the pen of a reporter to sway public opinion to the contrary.

You are putting too much emphasis on the guy writing an article for ESPN.com. That wasn't JayB or DickyV blogging away.

[Rosewood]

I still can't wrap my mind around the presumption that WSU doesn't try to schedule some of the teams listed.

Let's look at George Mason. First off, as much as I would like them to be a Top 50 RPI lock, they aren't (neither is WSU). But let's say we call them up to schedule.

Does George Mason really need to go to Wichita for anything? Recruiting? Of course not. And other than a game what do we gain with a George Mason? Nothing.

That same scenario is repeated over and over in that list you posted.

[tropicalshox]

A question that I don't have an answer. Would we be better off if they would go ahead and expand the dance? In years like this, without a change in scheduling, at least we would be in it.

[Rosewood]

A question that I don't have an answer. Would we be better off if they would go ahead and expand the dance? In years like this, without a change in scheduling, at least we would be in it.

We would be in it but the whole thing would be cheapened.

"Oh you made it? Who cares? Everyone makes it."

[The Mad Hatter]

You have to also consider that our record in Gregg's first two years was not good. That makes us even less attractive.

That is not necessarily true. BCS schools stay away from scheduling GOOD mid-tier teams because they don't want the risk.

Actually, the worst case scenario is where we have been for the last two years. A good team that isn't nationally recognized. You can be really bad and get the games. You can be good and have national attention and get the games. You can't be good and be a name that your fanbase will be upset about losing to.

[wusphlash]

I'm sure that if we get snubbed without having a major lapse(s) ala last year, than I believe that there will have to be a serious reconsideration of our scheduling. Including taking 1 or 2 buyout games if necessary. The problem is that I think that this year's team is going to be stronger than next year's, just for the fact that we lose 3 of our 4 bigs with experience. So we will have missed our chance so to speak.

We can schedule those games next year and will more than likely get worked inside against a big 12 type team or similar. I will hear any arguments to the contrary, that's just my opinion of our near future at this time.

1) I don't think we have to get snubbed to reconsider the schedule. Also, I don't think the coaching staff is ducking anyone. We all knew when we lost the UConn game that we lost an oppotunity for games 2 and 3. Had we won that game this thread might not exist. The coaches even spoke to that lost opportunity. One of the common thoughts in this thread is that scheduling up is not as easy as some would believe. Otherwise we would be questioning HCGM's manhood. I don't think that is the case.

2) I don't believe next year's team should be discounted until we see the product on the floor. Part of college basketball is rebuilding from year to year. We have a good core coming back with two new big men coming in and likely a third. Also, every year unknown players step to the forefront and perform beyond the expectations that were had going in. Who thought Paul Miller would be POY?

3) I would suggest that our big men will get tested next year in PR and by UNLV at a minium.

4) We need the rest of the Valley to schedule better as well. We need some high RPI games in our conference schedule not just outside.

I don't think this coaching staff is purposely scheduling down. There are a lot of factors that go into this equation. That includes season ticket holders that demand a certain number of home games. I would hate to see us settle for buy in games without first looking for solutions with other high mids.