What letter grade do you give the 2017-18 team this year?

[ShockCrazy]

The only metric where this team achieved was rankings. I count 7 years where our program advanced further in the tournament. 2 additional years we won our conference tournament. 4 additional years we won our conference. As a team that fails to do any of those, this makes this roughly the 14th best year for the Shockers.

In the year with the highest expectations. In a year where we came in expecting to be one of the few teams competing for a national championship. We achieved nothing except for getting consistent praise from national columnists, to be brutally honest. Its the journey not the destination, but along our path we failed in the preseason, in the conference, in the conference tournament, and then finally failed in the tournament.

It is arguably the worst a Wichita State team has ever performed versus expectations, counting the collapse in Turgeon's last year or even the dark ages between Smithson and Turgeon. That is why I didn't give the team a C or D; I gave them an F. This wasn't a year where finishing 2nd in every event and flaming out of the tournament could earn a higher grade. An F is the grade typically given for "failure," and we failed to achieve all of our goals.

The same results next season would see a higher grade, because our goals next season aren't going to be the same. It is going to be about making the tournament, not winning it. Competing in the AAC, not taking 1st place. A 25 win season ending with a Top 15 ranking would be a rebuilding team achieving a lot of its goals, rather than a fully built team failing to achieve theirs.

So finishing second to a top 10 team is a disappointment? Winning at that top 10 team's gym is not an achievement? Grade's have nothing to do with expectations. Grades are about what the team DID and the team still accomplished a lot no matter what you may say.

[FadedCrown]

So finishing second to a top 10 team is a disappointment? Winning at that top 10 team's gym is not an achievement? Grade's have nothing to do with expectations. Grades are about what the team DID and the team still accomplished a lot no matter what you may say.

In your opinion it has nothing to do with expectations, in my mind and lots of others here, expectations matter. End of story.

[jdshock]

Grade's have nothing to do with expectations. Grades are about what the team DID and the team still accomplished a lot no matter what you may say.

Both sides are acting like there's an objectively right answer to how you "grade" something. There is not. School grades tend to be based on actual performance barring expectations. Sometimes there are school grades based on growth from an individualized baseline. More importantly, this is a basketball season that can't get graded because that's a fictitious concept.

We get that you believe on a "performance" based metric, this was a good season. Most people have been saying how they grade it when throwing in expectations. If you consider expectations, how does the season get graded for you?

[Shockm]

In my mind, this was a disappointing seaso based on expectations but not a bad season. In the future this will be judged as one of our good seasons during a magical era. Some of this debate is based on semantics.

[ShockCrazy]

Both sides are acting like there's an objectively right answer to how you "grade" something. There is not. School grades tend to be based on actual performance barring expectations. Sometimes there are school grades based on growth from an individualized baseline. More importantly, this is a basketball season that can't get graded because that's a fictitious concept.

We get that you believe on a "performance" based metric, this was a good season. Most people have been saying how they grade it when throwing in expectations. If you consider expectations, how does the season get graded for you?

Ok, just because people want to throw in expectations doesn't make it rational or logical. What if my expectations for this year were 10 wins? This team gets an A++++++ then. What if next year I expect a national title, then I would probably be giving them an F because that's probably not going to happen. My recommendation was about giving perspective. This team was at least among the ten best in school history(I would actually slot above both last year and would entertain discussions about 2016 because the wins this team has on the court match or surpass it, and this team would have dominated MVC just as those teams did). Did the worst loss of the season come at objectively the worst time? Absolutely, that doesn't dumpster a season's worth of work.

[pinstripers]

A- till about Christmas.

[jdshock]

Ok, just because people want to throw in expectations doesn't make it rational or logical. What if my expectations for this year were 10 wins? This team gets an A++++++ then. What if next year I expect a national title, then I would probably be giving them an F because that's probably not going to happen. My recommendation was about giving perspective. This team was at least among the ten best in school history(I would actually slot above both last year and would entertain discussions about 2016 because the wins this team has on the court match or surpass it, and this team would have dominated MVC just as those teams did). Did the worst loss of the season come at objectively the worst time? Absolutely, that doesn't dumpster a season's worth of work.

Look, I'm just saying there's not an objectively correct way to grade a basketball season. The discussion has mostly involved taking expectations into consideration.

If your expectations were 10 wins, this team definitely should get an A+ from you, but I think we can all agree your expectations were irrational given who we were returning and how good we were last year.

[CBB_Fan]

So finishing second to a top 10 team is a disappointment? Winning at that top 10 team's gym is not an achievement? Grade's have nothing to do with expectations. Grades are about what the team DID and the team still accomplished a lot no matter what you may say.

Where's our trophy for finishing second? What medal did we win for winning at Cincinnati?

If you want to grade on what the team DID and not versus expectations, then I'll amend my grade. It is now a 0, not just an F. Because at the end of the day, we didn't get a championship in any form, even in the midseason tournament. Actually no, I'll raise it to 15%. We did technically make the tournament.

This team is NOT one of the 10 best in school history. There are 14 teams that added more to our trophy case. This team may not end as a top 10 team in the Marshall era. I would already put it 7th, behind 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. And I'd consider putting it 8th behind 2011, for the NIT championship.

Yes, finishing 2nd to Cincinnati is a disappointment. Though technically, we tied for 3rd and then lost to Houston in the tournament. If we are being honest with ourselves, we were third in the AAC, not second. Houston tied in conference, beat us in the AAC tournament, and went further in the NCAA tournament.

[ShockCrazy]

Where's our trophy for finishing second? What medal did we win for winning at Cincinnati?

If you want to grade on what the team DID and not versus expectations, then I'll amend my grade. It is now a 0, not just an F. Because at the end of the day, we didn't get a championship in any form, even in the midseason tournament. Actually no, I'll raise it to 15%. We did technically make the tournament.

This team is NOT one of the 10 best in school history. There are 14 teams that added more to our trophy case. This team may not end as a top 10 team in the Marshall era. I would already put it 7th, behind 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. And I'd consider putting it 8th behind 2011, for the NIT championship.

Yes, finishing 2nd to Cincinnati is a disappointment. Though technically, we tied for 3rd and then lost to Houston in the tournament. If we are being honest with ourselves, we were third in the AAC, not second. Houston tied in conference, beat us in the AAC tournament, and went further in the NCAA tournament.

Ok I'll bite. Do you believe if this team played the same Valley as 2016 and 2017 did, they would win it? My guess if this team was in the Valley this team goes 20-1 or 21-0. Why is this team punished for a MASSIVE step up in competition? Also tied for 3rd wut? We tied for 2nd.

[1972Shocker]

Perhaps now we are seeing how polls come under criticism for either being poorly constructed or worded in a way to influence the outcome.

In this case perhaps the poll question should have been: What letter grade would you give the 2017-18 team this year relative to your expectations?

Obviously the grade given will vary with the standard being measured against.

Then you need to define what the grades mean. In my mind a C would be met expectatins. An A far exeeds, a B exceeds, a C met expectations, a D fell short of expectations and F fell far short of expectations.

The poll really provides very little information since the responses are dependent on each persons own standard of measure and definition of what a particulary grade means.

Based on these standards and definitions I would expect most Shocker fans would have gave the team a D.

If you graded this team's performance (defined as success on the court) to other Shocker teams during Coach Marshall's tenure you probably would end up with a B. Above average. Espeically taking into account all the issues they had to deal with this year, the tough non-con scheudle and the move to the AAC.

[CBB_Fan]

Ok I'll bite. Do you believe if this team played the same Valley as 2016 and 2017 did, they would win it? My guess if this team was in the Valley this team goes 20-1 or 21-0. Why is this team punished for a MASSIVE step up in competition? Also tied for 3rd wut? We tied for 2nd.

No, I don't think this team would do as well in the Valley as 2016 or 2017. Or 2015. Or 2014. Or 2013. Or 2012. They are ranked worse than ALL of those years on the computer metrics. Statistically this was a worse team, not just a team that performed worse against better competition. I do not believe we would go 20-1 or 21-0, because this is a team struggled versus far worse teams than Loyola and played down to competition at the Valley's level (every team in the Valley is better than Tulane this year).

My point with "tied for third" is that it is equally accurate to say we were the 3rd best team in the AAC as the 2nd. In fact, it is more accurate.

[AndShock]

Ok I'll bite. Do you believe if this team played the same Valley as 2016 and 2017 did, they would win it? My guess if this team was in the Valley this team goes 20-1 or 21-0. Why is this team punished for a MASSIVE step up in competition? Also tied for 3rd wut? We tied for 2nd.

We would not have made the tournament if we were in the Valley this year. I believe that 100%.

[ShockCrazy]

No, I don't think this team would do as well in the Valley as 2016 or 2017. Or 2015. Or 2014. Or 2013. Or 2012. They are ranked worse than ALL of those years on the computer metrics. Statistically this was a worse team, not just a team that performed worse against better competition. I do not believe we would go 20-1 or 21-0, because this is a team struggled versus far worse teams than Loyola and played down to competition at the Valley's level (every team in the Valley is better than Tulane this year).

My point with "tied for third" is that it is equally accurate to say we were the 3rd best team in the AAC as the 2nd. In fact, it is more accurate.

Really this team wouldn't do as well? Compare who this team lost to and who was in the Valley over those years. The worst loss in conference was @Temple(you could say home against SMU but that SMU team would have easily been top 50 if injuries don't wreck the rest of the season). @Temple would have been the 2nd toughest game in the Valley last year to only @ISUr which we lost. @Temple would have been 3rd toughest in 2016 to @Evansville and @UNI, which we won both, but we also lost @ISUr and home UNI which are muuuch worse losses. And for fun @Temple is a tougher game than 2014 team faced in conference period.

[ShockTalk]

Ok, just because people want to throw in expectations doesn't make it rational or logical. What if my expectations for this year were 10 wins? This team gets an A++++++ then. What if next year I expect a national title, then I would probably be giving them an F because that's probably not going to happen. My recommendation was about giving perspective. This team was at least among the ten best in school history(I would actually slot above both last year and would entertain discussions about 2016 because the wins this team has on the court match or surpass it, and this team would have dominated MVC just as those teams did). Did the worst loss of the season come at objectively the worst time? Absolutely, that doesn't dumpster a season's worth of work.

If you don't believe that Coach Marshall, his staff, and the players have expectations of what they should achieve and "grade" themselves accordingly, then you're just Shock Crazy.

Marshall himself said that certain players regressed and that he was hard pressed to find any game he could call top quality game (think A+ grade).

Yes, if someone is basing their grade on expectation, then they should state those expectations (I did). If you didn't exceed or underperform, would that not be C? If we finished 165 in the RPI this season would you say that's a C. How do you grade our defense this year given the same players?

[ShockCrazy]

We would not have made the tournament if we were in the Valley this year. I believe that 100%.

So you think we somehow lose to Loyola 2+ times? A team we beat by an average of 14 last year.