Breaking Down WSU's Resume

[shoxtop]

Is 3-6 really that much better than 1-2? I'm not saying Wisconsin is on the outside looking in, but I think too much weight is given to just playing a really good schedule (they're still 3-6 against the RPI top 25, and it's not a stretch at all to say WSU couldn't do at least that good especially if we get an even number of home games). Plus WSU has lost 1/2 the games Wisky has lost including half as many 100-200 games as Wisconsin. That's got to count for something.

And mind you, this is the only selection I disagree with, and it's only by a spot or 2...I just think WSU should be ahead of Wisconsin, at this point. I love the blog JH4P.


And I am still looking for an answer on home and road weighted wins from early. I figure you're the one that knows.

I definetly agree with you here good doc. Our win percentage at 2-2 against the top 1-25 is actually better than theirs. Granted, when you move to the top 1-50, they do look a little better at 6-6 vs our 2-3. However, losing to the same 101-200 team twice in the same year I think hurts them much more than our 3 ot loss to drake at drake.

[wufan]

The current listing of 4-5 seeds are all very similar. You can make an argument to rearange them about any way you want and not be totally off-base.

[Rlh04d]

After looking into Florida State some more, I went ahead and flipped WSU ahead of them. All other changes are due to last night's games. As of today:

3 seeds:
Georgetown, Marquette, Baylor, Michigan

4 seeds:
Indiana, Wisconsin, Louisville, Wichita State

5 seeds:
Florida State, Florida, UNLV, Temple

I like that better. The four seeds are all arguable against one another, but I don't think I could make much of an argument for any of them as a three seed right now. FSU and UF moving down is right on the money.

Surprised to see UNLV that high, and especially over Temple, though. That's probably a gut feeling on the two being very similar, but Temple playing far better down the stretch. UNLV is on a terrible road streak, dropping four of their last six, with wins of two and five points against bad teams. I think there is a decent chance Colorado State upsets them tonight, but either way I think Temple is better. I think UNLV has benefited from their schedule ... They're 1-6 on the road against Top 100 RPI teams, three of those losses blow outs. That looks terrible to me.

I think UNLV is significantly overrated. But that helps WSU's RPI, so whatever.

If I remember right, Temple's two January losses occurred while they were playing through significant injuries, while they're back to full strength now.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Oddly enough, Lunardi has UNLV 4 spots ahead of Temple at the moment. I agree that they are neck and neck... not sure where he sees that much difference between them.

[AG1219]

Jamar, love what you do with the blog. Going a bit off topic here, but I have always been a strong believer in teams shouldn't get an At-Large if they have a losing conference record. You did a great job last year in explaining the "perfect storm" that was the Big East. The Big East is a different this year, but could you explain the rankings and likelyhood for at large for St. Louis, UConn, and Colorado St. Why they are in, or why they are out.

[Kung Wu]

I dislike people talking about injuries and suspensions when seeding for the NCAA (however I am fine considering that when ranking). If you take into account individual game preformances and injuries and suspensions and who played and who didn't in the conference tournies than it rewards teams like UNC. Roy Williams will sit most of his starters the first or second game of the ACC Tourny and UNC may go out 2nd round. However the committee will look at that and say...oh, we was just resting his starters, he deserves an even better seed because they are ready to play...and I think rewarding that kind of behavior is bogus. Now I think you can account for that in the rankings but in the seedings I hate seeing that kind of behavior rewarded. It once again is Biased towards BCS teams because if a team like Wichita State were to rest their starters and lose first or second round of the tourny than it would be the end of the world, we would be looking at a 7-9 seed.

You are correct in that the behavior described should not be rewarded. In fact it should be punished by a reduction in seed just like it would any team. However, key player injuries do affect most teams. Perfect example is UNI last year, they were pretty darn strong until their key senior got injured.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Jamar, love what you do with the blog. Going a bit off topic here, but I have always been a strong believer in teams shouldn't get an At-Large if they have a losing conference record. You did a great job last year in explaining the "perfect storm" that was the Big East. The Big East is a different this year, but could you explain the rankings and likelyhood for at large for St. Louis, UConn, and Colorado St. Why they are in, or why they are out.

St. Louis
RPI - 30, will probaby finish 2nd in A-10, similar to WSU only without any top 50 wins, a couple more losses than WSU including an awful loss to Rhode Island. Will likely play in the 8/9 game first round.

UConn
RPI - 37, will probably finish 8-10 in Big East, only 5-11 in 2012. They do have 8 top 100 wins and a good RPI for a bubble team. Need to win on Senior night at home against Pitt and then win 1 game in the Big East Tourney in order to feel safe.

Colorado State
RPI - 24, Will finish no better than 8-6 in MWC. Like UConn, they also have 8 top 100 wins and a very nice RPI for a bubble team. Need to beat UNLV tonight at home or to win a couple games in their conference tourney. They will be an interesting case to analyize since they have a poor league record with a lot of losses down the stretch but a very nice RPI.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

St. Louis
RPI - 30, will probaby finish 2nd in A-10, similar to WSU only without any top 50 wins, a couple more losses than WSU including an awful loss to Rhode Island. Will likely play in the 8/9 game first round.

UConn
RPI - 37, will probably finish 8-10 in Big East, only 5-11 in 2012. They do have 8 top 100 wins and a good RPI for a bubble team. Need to win on Senior night at home against Pitt and then win 1 game in the Big East Tourney in order to feel safe.

Colorado State
RPI - 24, Will finish no better than 8-6 in MWC. Like UConn, they also have 8 top 100 wins and a very nice RPI for a bubble team. Need to beat UNLV tonight at home or to win a couple games in their conference tourney. They will be an interesting case to analyize since they have a poor league record with a lot of losses down the stretch but a very nice RPI.

Ok, so I am wondering why UCONN should feel safe and Colorado State should not? CSU has a winning record, same number of top 100 wins, and a better record down the stretch than UCONN?

[Rlh04d]

Ok, so I am wondering why UCONN should feel safe and Colorado State should not? CSU has a winning record, same number of top 100 wins, and a better record down the stretch than UCONN?

I'm confused as to why UConn seems to be safer than USF, when USF has an insanely better conference record in the supposedly top conference in the land.

[ShockTalk]

Ok, so I am wondering why UCONN should feel safe and Colorado State should not? CSU has a winning record, same number of top 100 wins, and a better record down the stretch than UCONN?

I think he said both would have to do about the same thing to feel safe, win a couple more games. All is pretty moot now as JH4P made the statement prior to CO St win over UNLV and your question asked after.

[ShockTalk]

I'm confused as to why UConn seems to be safer than USF, when USF has an insanely better conference record in the supposedly top conference in the land.

I'll give it a shot. UConn played a tougher conference schedule. Each team in the Big East plays everyone once and 3 teams twice.

UConn played Syracuse (1 RPI), Seton Hall (44), and ND (47) twice, going 2-4.

USF played Pitt (94), Villanova (119), and Providence (150) twice, going 6-0.

Also USF lost to UConn at home and also had a lower OOC SoS going 6-6, UConn went 10-2.

[Rlh04d]

I'll give it a shot. UConn played a tougher conference schedule. Each team in the Big East plays everyone once and 3 teams twice.

UConn played Syracuse (1 RPI), Seton Hall (44), and ND (47) twice, going 2-4.

USF played Pitt (94), Villanova (119), and Providence (150) twice, going 6-0.

Also USF lost to UConn at home and also had a lower OOC SoS going 6-6, UConn went 10-2.

That would make sense, then. For some reason I thought the conference was just a round robin with teams playing each other once.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'll give it a shot. UConn played a tougher conference schedule. Each team in the Big East plays everyone once and 3 teams twice.

UConn played Syracuse (1 RPI), Seton Hall (44), and ND (47) twice, going 2-4.

USF played Pitt (94), Villanova (119), and Providence (150) twice, going 6-0.

Also USF lost to UConn at home and also had a lower OOC SoS going 6-6, UConn went 10-2.

ShockTalk nailed it. The Big East is weird, unbalanced, and generally anoying to me. They play most teams only once per year. Who you get matched up with to place twice any given year makes a huge difference.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Ok, so I am wondering why UCONN should feel safe and Colorado State should not? CSU has a winning record, same number of top 100 wins, and a better record down the stretch than UCONN?

Colorado State is just inside the bubble after beating UNLV. They can lock up their bid with a road win at Air Force tomorrow and then 1 win in the MWC Tourney. Even just winning one of those 2 games would probably be enough to get them in, but both would keep them from sweating on Selection Sunday.

[ShockTalk]

ShockTalk nailed it. The Big East is weird, unbalanced, and generally anoying to me. They play most teams only once per year. Who you get matched up with to place twice any given year makes a huge difference.

I'll add that even the single games a team plays could be "unbalanced". Take 2 equal, middle of the pack teams who each play a top, middle, and bottom team twice. Each goes 3-3. Next, each would likely beat the other bottom 2 teams at home or away, but most likely lose to the other top 2 teams whether at home or away. Team A plays all 4 of these games at home and goes 2-2, Team B plays all 4 on the road and goes 2-2. Well, both teams have the same records at this point. However, now you look at the other middle 8 teams where playing them at home is an advantage. Team A only gets to play 2 at home, 6 on the road and likely goes 3-5. Team B plays 6 at home, including Team A, and 2 on the road and goes 5-3. Team A goes 8-10, Team B 10-8 and owns the tie breaker if needed.

You can see what a mess this all becomes anytime a conference doesn't play everyone twice. Conference scheduling may help one team into the dance, while bursting the bubble of another, equally deserving team.