Wichita State: at Tulsa (02/05/23)

[Stickboy46]

Don't think you could argue that with WVU this season as he is one of the biggest reasons they will be dancing in March

The biggest reason they will be dancing is that the Big XII will carry them there even though they don't win games.

[Kung Wu]

The biggest reason they will be dancing is that the Big XII will carry them there even though they don't win games.

And they have an experienced coach.

[SubGod22]

I still believe that any team that can't at least go .500 in their conference doesn't deserve to Dance come March.

[Dan]

One thing about WV is certain, they are as good as anyone at losing to good teams. No reason to think that won't change if they get in the tourney.

[Atxshoxfan]

We had Tyson Etienne last year who had exactly the same average total points per game last year that TP is having this year: 14.9/game. Tyson went off for 20+ in 7 games. TP has done it 4 times this year.

Even having a guard that could go off 7 out of 27 games wasn't enough to overcome what is holding our school back.

Some players who score big hurt their team. In TEs case, I felt IB almost encouraged TE to go solo in order to raise his stock. I believe that if TP were here, we would see the same thing.
I'm not impressed by high scoring individuals, especially if only 2 or 3 team members hit double figures. Much nicer to see 4 or5 in double figures and a few more with 5-9

[ShockTalk]

Some players who score big hurt their team. In TEs case, I felt IB almost encouraged TE to go solo in order to raise his stock. I believe that if TP were here, we would see the same thing.
I'm not impressed by high scoring individuals, especially if only 2 or 3 team members hit double figures. Much nicer to see 4 or5 in double figures and a few more with 5-9

chocolates.jpg

TP is that Box of Chocolates.

2 of his last three games have been great. 23-40 FG, 13-21 3pt, 65 points. The other game, he did score 17, but was 6-17 / 1-6.

In his 6 games previous to that, 18-67 FG, 5-34 3pt, 63 points aided by his FTs 22-26.

Add to post:

In 5 games, he shot 25-37 from 3 (.676)

In remaining 23, 24-91 (.264).

[Kel Varnsen]

I still believe that any team that can't at least go .500 in their conference doesn't deserve to Dance come March.

I’ll challenge this. Why so?

If we can make an arbitrary cutoff based on win percentage in conference, why can’t we establish a cutoff based on win percentage in conference relative to conference schedule strength? Clearly there are conferences that are better than others, so shouldn’t we keep that in mind? Strength of schedule has long been a metric by which we have judged teams, and although it hasn’t been applied properly, can be a useful part of an overall team evaluation. “Well you haven’t played anyone and lost three or four conference games!” shouldn’t be an argument either, in the reverse sense.

I have long been an ardent defender of the fact that small schools (particularly UNCG a few years ago) have been absolutely hosed in terms of the lack of objectivity in the selection process. So this should not be construed as some sort of defense of power conference schools.

However, we have to evaluate record relative to schedule if we evaluate tournament resumes. There are many people doing this. Wins Above Bubble is available via Torvik and Seth Burn, and Strength of Record is available on ESPN as well. They’re both resume-based metrics as opposed to predictive metrics, but they also rely on predictive metrics to establish a baseline for the strength of teams, influencing a prediction of an average bubble team against a given schedule. So if you play a bunch of top 25 teams based on predictive metrics within your conference, the evaluation of your team should absolutely change because of that.

Anyways, wanted to challenge this way of thinking because I believe it’s overly simplistic and leads to making judgments on one end that we wouldn’t like to have made the other way. Also, the population of teams this applies to is fairly small.

[Husker4Shockers]

Ah yes, The Process. Thanks for the clarification; how could I have forgotten?

[Kel Varnsen]

Ah yes, The Process. Thanks for the clarification; how could I have forgotten?

You have been assessed a demerit, and this will go on your annual performance review.

[ShockerFever]

I’ll challenge this. Why so?

If we can make an arbitrary cutoff based on win percentage in conference, why can’t we establish a cutoff based on win percentage in conference relative to conference schedule strength? Clearly there are conferences that are better than others, so shouldn’t we keep that in mind? Strength of schedule has long been a metric by which we have judged teams, and although it hasn’t been applied properly, can be a useful part of an overall team evaluation. “Well you haven’t played anyone and lost three or four conference games!” shouldn’t be an argument either, in the reverse sense.

I have long been an ardent defender of the fact that small schools (particularly UNCG a few years ago) have been absolutely hosed in terms of the lack of objectivity in the selection process. So this should not be construed as some sort of defense of power conference schools.

However, we have to evaluate record relative to schedule if we evaluate tournament resumes. There are many people doing this. Wins Above Bubble is available via Torvik and Seth Burn, and Strength of Record is available on ESPN as well. They’re both resume-based metrics as opposed to predictive metrics, but they also rely on predictive metrics to establish a baseline for the strength of teams, influencing a prediction of an average bubble team against a given schedule. So if you play a bunch of top 25 teams based on predictive metrics within your conference, the evaluation of your team should absolutely change because of that.

Anyways, wanted to challenge this way of thinking because I believe it’s overly simplistic and leads to making judgments on one end that we wouldn’t like to have made the other way. Also, the population of teams this applies to is fairly small.

My response would be, they can leave the conference if it’s too tough for them and join an “easier” mid major league and see if that makes it easier for them to make the tournament.

These teams also get a billion chances at quality wins, and half of them at home. They have way more opportunity than the little guy. If they can’t win more games than they lose, then they are by definition losers and should make other plans in March.

[Kel Varnsen]

My response would be, they can leave the conference if it’s too tough for them and join an “easier” mid major league and see if that makes it easier for them to make the tournament.

These teams also get a billion chances at quality wins, and half of them at home. They have way more opportunity than the little guy. If they can’t win more games than they lose, then they are by definition losers and should make other plans in March.

I agree with a decent amount of what you’re saying. High-major teams have been favored by the selection committee compared to mid and low majors (again, something I have a deep-seeded problem with).

Some of this has to do with the problem of the selection committee process, which we can all agree is inconsistent, and the advent of the NET, which is a metric that has no clue what it’s measuring, and while better than the abomination that was the RPI, is still lackluster.

I simply think that there’s a way (WAB, SOR) to evaluate teams that eliminates that bias against mid-majors and low-majors, while standardizing for strength of schedule. It would typically favor those non-high major schools if you applied it historically, but would also account for the few high-major schools who happened to play a ridiculously tough schedule. Which to me is fair.

[Kung Wu]

Anyways, wanted to challenge this way of thinking because I believe it’s overly simplistic and leads to making judgments on one end that we wouldn’t like to have made the other way. Also, the population of teams this applies to is fairly small.

Then you would favor dropping the conference tournament autobids from the tournament?

[Kel Varnsen]

Then you would favor dropping the conference tournament autobids from the tournament?

I would be fine with that, in the sense that conference regular season champs should get the auto bid instead of the tournament champion. It implies that your season matters more than a three or four game stretch. It is frustrating seeing a team like Belmont or Furman destroy their conference competition, only to lose a championship game by a possession.

That said, and I think this might be what you’re getting at, each conference in Division 1 should have a chance to get into the tournament. Most will only have one bid, but that creates a better tournament.

While I believe strongly in this philosophy for at-large bids, the automatic bid process should remain the same.

[WstateU]

Guess my eyes aren’t fooling me after-all; something looked strange when I watched it live…

[Kung Wu]

Oh come on. That wasn't a pre-planned play. The first guy went up in case the ball hung up and popped out in his direction -- but it was a brick so it wasn't even in the same ZIP code. Rojas and Porter are both locked onto the ball and ignoring the first goofball other than a fleeting moment when Rojas realizes he might take a knee to the chin. It was a great read and finish by the scorer though.